[Senate Hearing 110-599]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-599
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1816 S. 3148
S. 2093 S. 3158
S. 2535 S. 3226
S. 2561 S. 3247
S. 3011 H.R. 5137
S. 3113
__________
JULY 30, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-339 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 1
Braunlich, William H., President, Monroe County Historical
Society, Monroe, MI............................................ 53
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 3
Carter, Derb S., Jr., Attorney, Southern Environmental Law
Center, Chapel Hill, NC........................................ 41
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator From New York......... 8
Dole, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator From North Carolina........... 9
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 28
Jenkins, Coline, President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust,
Greenwich, CT.................................................. 48
Judge, Warren, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Dare County, NC. 37
Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator From Michigan..................... 5
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator From Oregon.................. 10
Wenk, Daniel N., Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 13
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 59
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 85
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM
HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on National
Parks will come to order. We have a long list of bills to
consider today, including the following:
S. 1816, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a commemorative trail in connection with the Women's
Rights National Historical Park, and will link properties that
are associated with the struggle for women's suffrage.
S. 2093, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study
segments of two rivers in the State of Vermont for potential
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
S. 2535, to revise the boundary of the Martin Van Buren
National Historic Site in New York.
S. 2561, to require the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a theme study to identify sites to commemorate and
interpret the Cold War.
S. 3011, to expand the boundaries of the Palo Alto
Battlefield National Historic Site in Texas.
S. 3113, which concerns off road vehicle use in Cape
Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina.
S. 3148, to modify the boundary of Oregon Caves National
Monument.
S. 3158, to extend the authority for the Cape Cod National
Seashore Advisory Commission.
S. 3226, to rename the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National
Historic Site in Kentucky as the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace
National Historical Park.
S. 3247, to designate the River Raisin National Battlefield
Park in Michigan.
H.R. 5137, to ensure that hunting remains a purpose of the
New River Gorge National River in West Virginia.
While most of the bills on the agenda are non-
controversial, a few bills will require more discussion. One of
the bills is S. 3113, regarding off road vehicle use within the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore. This bill will overturn a
consent decree negotiated by the affected parties and approved
by the Federal judge, which is not our normal practice.
The bill also raises issues about how the Park Service
should manage the seashore and threatened wildlife. I
understand that this is an important piece of legislation for
the Senators from North Carolina. I hope that we can use this
hearing to gain a better understanding of the situation.
This is our last hearing of the summer. I wanted to thank
our ranking member for working with me in such a cooperative
and productive manner. Last week the subcommittee held an
oversight hearing in Asheville, North Carolina regarding a
biodiversity program of the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. The hearing was chaired by Senator Burr, and, by all
accounts was a great success. I want to acknowledge Senator
Burr's efforts to facilitate a timely discussion on the topic.
With that I'd like to recognize Senator Burr for his
opening remarks.
[The prepared statements of Senators Sanders and Wyden
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders, U.S. Senator From Vermont,
on S. 2093
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, as the Subcommittee on
National Parks today considers a variety of bills I want to briefly
comment on S. 2093, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic
River Study Act (S. 2093). Sponsored by Senator Leahy and myself, this
bill would simply establish a study to determine the appropriateness of
adding the Missisquoi River and its major tributary, the Trout River,
to the National Park Service's Wild and Scenic River System. It would
be the state's first wild and scenic river designation and as you might
guess, is very important to the state of Vermont.
Vermonters have long valued the natural beauty and water quality of
our state's rivers. The Missisquoi River, in particular, offers
significant values for wildlife, scenery, and recreational activities.
In addition, as the Missisquoi River flows into Missisquoi Bay on Lake
Champlain, the bill is important to ongoing efforts by the state of
Vermont and local communities to protect and maintain water quality on
the lake. It is important to note that since 1982, segments of the
Missisquoi have been listed on the National Park Service's Nationwide
Rivers Inventory list as being candidates for wild and scenic
designation.
The Missisquoi River Basin Association of East Berkshire, Vermont,
is committed to protecting water quality through numerous on-the-ground
projects in the area. They are also coordinating efforts in the state,
with state and local governments and affected communities, to proceed
with the Missisquoi River study called for in S. 2093. I have received
letters supporting these efforts from them, the state Agency of Natural
Resources, and affected communities along the river.
As I read the Administration's testimony on S. 2093, I understand
that there are concerns about areas on the Missisquoi River that they
feel are not suitable for wild and scenic river consideration. I am
confident that the Committee will be able to proceed in a positive
manner that addresses the legitimate concerns of local communities in
Vermont, for whom the Missisquoi's wild and scenic designation is
crucial to protecting water quality and preserving the river's rich
wildlife and recreational opportunities, and I look forward to moving
this legislation quickly through the Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator From Oregon,
on S. 3148
I am very pleased that we are having a hearing today on S. 3148,
legislation that I introduced to expand the boundary of the Oregon
Caves National Monument, and I thank the Chairman for holding this
hearing today.
My bill would expand the Monument boundary by 4,084 acres to
include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, management of which would be
transferred from the United States Forest Service to the National Park
Service.
Expanding this boundary will allow us to further protect the
stunning majesty of both the underground and the above-ground treasures
found at this National Monument.
Because the current 480-acre boundary is insufficient to adequately
protect this cave system, the National Park Service has formally
proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again
in 1949, and most recently in 2000.
In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of
rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the
federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean
Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. A perennial stream, the ``River
Styx,''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of
the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the
National Monument.
This bill would also provide authorization for the voluntary
retirement of existing grazing allotments. The current grazing
permitee, Phil Krouse and his family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing
Allotment (19,703 acres) since 1937. But Mr. Krouse now favors lease
retirement with private compensation for his allotment; my bill will
enable that local solution to further protect monument resources.
The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to
Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The Monument
receives over 80,000 visitors annually, and is the second smallest unit
of the National Park System.
A larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the
recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the
proposed Monument boundary and provide visitors more chances to enjoy
them. In addition to the numerous subsurface resources, the Monument's
above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and
diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world.
I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters in
the local business and conservation community in Southern Oregon, to
Phil Krouse for his commitment to Oregon's natural resources, and to
Craig Ackerman, the former Superintendent of the Oregon Caves National
Monument.
I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and my
colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio,
Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu, who have introduced the companion
legislation to this bill, to advance this legislation.
I will be submitting questions for record for the Agency witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. More
importantly thank you for holding this hearing.
As I've ended every hearing that we've had here with a long
list of bills, the Chairman has suggested that we're through,
only to find out a couple weeks later that we're back doing it
again. So I'm not sure whether I'm going to take him at his
word that this is the last of this year. But I do hope that we
have addressed all of the bills that our colleagues find a need
for us to address.
Before going into any details on the bills before us today
I also want to thank Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman for
allowing me to do a field hearing in the Great Smoky Mountains.
This was an effort to update this committee and this Congress
on the efforts undertaken years ago to do an inventory, an All
Taxa Biodiversity Inventory, of each species and plants that
maybe we didn't know existed in the United States or in the
world. I will say that from the results of that hearing we have
found phenomenal progress, the discovery of things never
imagined. For anybody scared of spiders they might not want to
hear how many new species of spiders have actually been found.
Kira Rachel from the committee staff did a wonderful job,
Mr. Chairman, working with the University of North Carolina at
Asheville and with my staff to make this hearing a success. I,
once again, I thank you publicly for your willingness to allow
this to be undertaken.
Now, I understand that this may be the last hearing of our
subcommittee this year. I'd like to take a moment to
acknowledge your leadership, Chairman Akaka as it's been
productive. In the 12 hearings during 110th Congress, this
subcommittee received testimony and discussions on 117 bills.
I'm not sure how that compares with other subcommittees,
but it must be a record. I'll say that's it a record, Mr.
Chairman. Of the 11 bills on our agenda today, is close to the
average. I know all the members appreciate your leadership in
addressing these bills in a timely fashion.
Today's agenda includes the important bill that my State of
North Carolina with Cape Hatteras National Seashores. It's a
national treasure for the people of North Carolina and more
importantly for the visitors around this country that have
enjoyed it for generations. The National Park Service has been
remiss in their requirement to prepare an off road vehicle
management plan for the park.
Because of that, we're now faced with the situation in
which a court sanctioned agreement is dictating the use of the
area while the Park Service works on their rulemaking process
that may take up to 3 years to complete. A bill introduced by
Senator Dole, S. 3113, would authorize the Park Service to
follow their interim management plan which addresses endangered
species in accordance with the biological opinion issued by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rather than the court sanctioned
agreement.
I support this legislation. I want to commend Senator Dole
for her leadership in introducing this bill and for working to
find a solution. She's here today now. She's here to provide
more details about her bill. I certainly look forward to her
testimony.
We also, Mr. Chairman, have two witnesses here from North
Carolina to provide testimony. I'd like to publicly welcome
Warren Judge, from Dare County and Derb Carter from Chapel
Hill. I thank both of them for their willingness to be here to
make the trip to testify in front of this committee.
Mr. Chairman, I'd love to think that we could get Senator
Dole's bill done this year. I understand the comments that you
made. I would only ask you and my colleagues throughout the
entire Senate to understand we haven't been thrown a usual
curveball, but we've been thrown a curveball that didn't exist
up until now in large measure because the Park Service didn't
do their management plan on time. The net result is that courts
got involved in something that, quite frankly, they never
should have gotten involved in. Those that will suffer are the
next generation whose parents and grandparents use that
national treasure in a way that they were protective of the
environment, but enjoyed that national treasure in a way that I
think God meant it to be enjoyed.
I thank you for this hearing. Look forward to our
witnesses.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. I want
all of you to know that we are honored today to have three of
our colleagues here to testify on some of these bills. This
doesn't happen very often, but we have you here and I want to
then ask in this order of Senator Levin, Senator Clinton and
Senator Dole to give their statements.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. Senator
Burr, thank you for the extraordinary work that you two do so
well together. The issues that you grapple with, types, issues
that we have on your agenda here today I know are important to
each one of us. But you make these issues that are important to
us, important to you as well and your staffs and that's very,
very much appreciated.
The bill that I'm here on is the River Raisin National
Battlefield Act. The bill is co-sponsored by Senator Stabenow.
It is a Senate Companion bill to the one introduced by
Congressman Dingell, who I know had hoped to be here. I think
there's three votes in the House. So he may not be able to get
here I understand.
He has spearheaded the effort to designate this battlefield
as a unit of the National Park System. The battles of the River
Raisin which took place in January of 1813 during the height of
the War of 1812 were a critical part of the American campaign
to retake Detroit in the Michigan territory from the British
and from their Native American allies. On January 18, 1813,
American militiamen were successful initially in overpowering
the British forces in Frenchtown, now part of Monroe, Michigan.
Four days later bolstered with additional support from
their Native American allies the British returned killing
hundreds of American soldiers. Outmatched the American forces
were defeated and about 60 wounded militiamen were unable to
walk were left behind on the battlefield. It was early the next
morning on January the 23rd, when unarmed, wounded militiamen
were killed.
Settlement homes were set ablaze. The bodies of slain
soldiers were thrown into the fires. Of the nearly 1,000
Americans who fought in these fierce battles, about 400 were
killed or missing in action, roughly 500 were taken as
prisoners of war and only 33 escaped death or captivity.
It was a brutal confrontation. It gave birth to a rallying
cry, ``Remember the Raisin.'' That rallying cry galvanized
American resolve of the War of 1812.
It helped to rally American forces to overcome the British
and to secure our Northern border. Visualize rallying cries
like, ``Remember the Maine,'' or ``Remember Pearl Harbor,'' or
just simply, 9-11. It may give you a flavor of what the cry,
``Remember the Raisin'' meant in America in 1813.
The War of 1812 sometimes called America's forgotten war
was a vital turning point in our Nation's history. It
established America's place as an independent Nation capable of
defending itself. It secured our borders and enhanced our
international reputation and boosted our young Nation's morale.
The River Raisin Battlefield sites were the place of
horrific events. Yet these events became a turning point. A
turning point that spurred our troops to future victories,
protect our lands and it culminated in a celebration of
America's second war of independence.
While there are currently eight War of 1812 battlefield
sites there are included in the National Park System, none of
these sites are located in areas that were then considered the
Northwest. All of the National Park sites relating to War of
1812 are located in the Eastern and Southern parts of the
country. So the River Raisin Battlefield site meets important
criteria for inclusion in the Park System.
That is that it represents themes, sites and resources not
already represented in the National Park System. Securing the
Northwest, as it was then known during the War of 1812, as a
vital piece of American history. It should be part of our
Nation's Park System.
Today we are delighted to have with us and you will hear
from a representative of the Monroe Historical Commission and
Society, Mark Worrel. Excuse me. That's the Mayor of Monroe is
here today, Mark Worrel. He will not be testifying apparently.
But William Braunlich, who is President of the Monroe
County Historical Society is here. He will be representing
Monroe. So we're delighted to have Mayor Worrel and Mr.
Braunlich here with us.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the events at the River Raisin
were a critical part of our Nation's history. They deserved to
be shared with all Americans through our National Park System.
Now this resource meets the criteria for inclusion in our Park
System.
We should not delay designating this area as a battlefield
because we are approaching the 200th anniversary of the War of
1812. We need to act quickly if we're to see this site properly
interpreted in time for this national celebration. I would ask
that the balance of my statement be inserted in the record.
Senator Akaka. No objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator From Michigan,
on S. 3247
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, thank you for holding this
hearing today on S. 3247, The River Raisin National Battlefield Act.
This bill, cosponsored by Senator Stabenow, is the Senate companion to
a bill Congressman John Dingell introduced in the House. Congressman
Dingell will also be testifying today and has spearheaded the effort to
designate this battlefield as a unit of the National Park System.
The Battles of River Raisin, which took place in January of 1813
during the height of the War of 1812, were a critical part of the
American campaign to retake Detroit and the Michigan Territory from the
British and their Native American allies. On January 18, 1813, American
militiamen were successful in initially overpowering the British forces
in Frenchtown, which is now part of Monroe, Michigan. Four days later,
bolstered with additional support from their Native American allies,
the British returned, killing hundreds of American soldiers.
Outmatched, the American forces were defeated, and about 60 wounded
militiamen who were unable to walk were left behind on the battlefield.
Early the next morning, on January 23, 1813, the unarmed wounded
militiamen were killed. Settlement homes were set ablaze and the bodies
of slain soldiers were thrown into the fires. Of the nearly 1,000
Americans who fought in these fierce battles, about 400 were killed or
missing in action, roughly 500 were taken as prisoners of war, and only
33 escaped death or captivity. This brutal confrontation gave birth to
the rallying cry, ``Remember the Raisin.'' It galvanized American
resolve in the War of 1812 and helped rally American forces to overcome
the British and secure our northern border.
The War of 1812 is also known as America's forgotten war, and yet
it was a vital turning point in our nation's history and established
America's place as an independent nation, capable of defending itself.
It secured our borders, enhanced our international reputation, and
boosted our young nation's morale. The River Raisin battlefield sites
were the place of horrific events; yet these events became a turning
point that spurred our troops to future victories, protected our lands,
and culminated in a celebration of America's ``Second War of
Independence.''
The River Raisin battles and the massacre that followed were some
of the most significant of the War of 1812, and had one of the highest
casualty rates for the American Army during the entire course of the
war. The Monroe County Historical Society recently commissioned a study
by Brian Dunnigan, Interim Director of the Clements Library at the
University of Michigan, to address the issue of ``national
significance.'' He concludes, ``The significance of the site lies in
its manifestation that the War of 1812 in the West actually constituted
a pair of parallel conflicts, in which the United States forces
contended with the British and Canadians in a conventional war but were
also involved in a full-scale and bitter wilderness conflict with the
remaining organized Native American groups living east of the
Mississippi River. . . . No other site better represents this theme of
American history.'' The battlefield is also already listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, and is being nominated for
designation as a National Historic Landmark.
While there are currently eight War of 1812 Battlefield sites that
are included within the National Park System, none of these sites are
located in areas that were then considered the ``Northwest.'' Instead,
the War of 1812 sites currently within the National Park System are all
located in the eastern and southern parts of our country. Thus, the
River Raisin battlefield site also meets another criterion for
inclusion in the park system: that it represents themes, sites, and
resources not already represented in the National Park System. Securing
the then Northwest during the War of 1812 is a vital piece of American
history, and should be part of our nation's park system.
When studying an area for inclusion in the park system, alternative
management options also need to be considered to determine whether the
National Park Service is best suited to administer the resource.
Currently, some of the River Raisin battlefield is being managed
through a cooperative agreement between the Monroe County Historical
Commission and the Monroe County Historical Society. The City of Monroe
and Monroe County own other parts of the battlefield site. Many local
groups are involved, and powerful collaborative efforts are under way
to protect and interpret these historical resources. It is critical
that the federal government provide leadership to coordinate these
efforts and bring this story to all of the American people through the
National Park System. Elevating this nationally significant site to the
Federal level will enhance its accessibility to all Americans and will
bring this important story of America's Second War of Independence to
the rest of our country.
Finally, an area to be designated as a unit of the National Park
System must have sufficient public support. The local enthusiasm behind
this proposal is tremendous. Later during this hearing, in your third
panel of witnesses, you will hear from William Braunlich, President of
the Monroe County Historical Society, who has vast knowledge about the
River Raisin site. Importantly, the Mayor of Monroe, Mark G. Worrell is
also present today to show his strong support for this designation.
Other current and past members of the Monroe County Historical Society
are also here today to urge your support for this designation. I
believe that you have also received several letters from other
community members in support of this legislation. I have not heard of a
single dissenting voice in the community. Significantly, the local
community has donated tremendous time, money, and energy to preserving
this battlefield site. Since 2000, a total of $1.5 million in local
funds have been committed to the River Raisin battlefield site. The
State of Michigan has long recognized the significance of this
battlefield site, and placed it in the State Register of Historic
Places in 1956. Since 2000, the state has provided over $2 million for
the River Raisin battlefield site. Additionally, the City of Monroe is
committed to donating a core 36-acre parcel of the battlefield to the
National Park Service, which this bill will also authorize.
The events at the River Raisin are a critical part of our nation's
history, and deserve to be shared with all Americans through our
National Park System. This resource clearly meets the criteria for
inclusion in our park system, and we should not delay designating this
area as a Battlefield. With the approaching 200th Anniversary of the
War of 1812, we need to act quickly if we are to see this site properly
interpreted in time for this national celebration. I now urge the
Committee to favorably report the River Raisin National Battlefield Act
so that all Americans will ``Remember the Raisin.''
Senator Levin. Again I thank the Chair.
Senator Akaka. Included in the record. Thank you very much,
Senator Levin. Now we'll hear from Senator Hillary Clinton.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka and
Senator Burr. Thank you for inviting us to testify today on
some important matters to our states and to our country.
I'm privileged to be here this afternoon with Coline
Jenkins, who you will hear from in the next panel. She is the
great, great granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the
President of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust. I'm testifying
today on behalf of two pieces of legislation.
One that would create the National Women's Rights History
Project Act and the second, the Martin Van Buren National
Historic Site Boundary Revision Act. You know, it has been a
cause of mine for a number of years to make sure that all of
our history is known and appreciated and particularly
accessible to future generations. When I was privileged to be
First Lady I created the Save America's Treasures Program which
the Congress has consistently supported to preserve and promote
historic treasures and landmarks throughout America.
I also believe this is critical for economic development.
Heritage, tourism, nostalgia tourism are real economic tools
that more and more communities are beginning to use. When I
look at the role that Upstate New York played in the Women's
Rights movements that led to the women's right to vote and
still is influencing the world today, I'm very excited by this
legislation.
Five years ago I started working with my colleague,
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter to establish a tourism trail to
be known as the Votes for Women History Trail Route. It is a
commemorative trail in connection with the existing Women's
Rights National Historical Park. It would create an auto route
across upper New York State that would link properties
historically and thematically associated with the struggle for
women's rights.
It will include uniform signage and maps and educational
handbooks, interpretive guides and websites. It does not
authorize through this legislation any land acquisition. But it
links already existing sites, both privately and publicly
owned. It would ensure that all the sites on the tour have
verifiable connections to the expansion of women's rights.
It will also recognize that although New York is where the
Declaration of Sentiments was drafted in 1848 in this month,
all those years ago, that women won the rights because of
national action in amending our Constitution and passing
necessary legislation. So the second part of the legislation
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make annual
grants for up to 5 years to assist in stage historic
preservation efforts. It's important because then we would be
able to have the National Women's Rights History Project
National Registry.
So we're going to both honor women's rights including Susan
B. Anthony's home in Rochester, New York, the homes of Harriet
Tubman in Auburn, New York. The Farmington Quaker Meeting House
where members signed a petition to the New York legislature in
favor of women's suffrage in 1848. But will also be expanding
to a public/private partnership that will reach across our
country.
I want to say a few words about the Martin Van Buren
National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act. President Van
Buren, our eighth President, was born in a tavern in the tiny
Upstate New York village of Kinderhook in 1782. After his
Presidency, that's where he returned home to.
The Martin Van Buren National Historic Site was established
by Congress in 1974. It preserves a portion of land from the
Van Buren's original farm as well as the mansion built in the
1790s. Although the original farm was 225 acres, today the
general public has access to only 20 acres.
My legislation will adjust the boundary to increase the
site to approximately 261 acres. That sounds like a big
expansion. But all of the land owners agree because the
majority of the land will remain under private ownership and
management.
But it will enable the Park Service to provide visitor
access to Van Buren's original farm by way of trails. So the
land will remain under private ownership and management. But
will be accessible to the general public.
So, Mr. Chairman and Senator Burr these are two very
important projects to my state and our country. It's important
that we recognize these historic achievements. We just marked
the 160th anniversary of the Women's Rights Convention in
Seneca Falls, New York for the very first time in all of
history. Women and some courageous men came together to declare
that women should have the same rights and to begin the long
march toward suffrage which we finally achieved.
My mother was born before women could vote. So for her and
for so many of our mothers and our grandmothers this
recognition linking our past to our present and moving into the
future is especially important. I thank the committee for their
consideration.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. It
will certainly help us in our consideration of your bills. At
this point in time I would suggest to Senator Levin and Senator
Clinton that you may be excused if you----
Senator Levin. Thank you. Yes.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statements.
Now we will hear from Senator Dole and look forward to your
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH DOLE, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Dole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Burr. Thank you for holding this hearing today on S. 3113, a
bill to reinstate the National Park Service's Interim
Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina. I introduced this
bill with my colleague, Senator Burr. I appreciate your remarks
earlier.
This was introduced last month after hearing the cipherous
concerns from local leaders and many of the seashore's visitors
discussing the issue with the Park Superintendent and reviewing
the Park's management plan. I strongly support the
reinstatement of the National Park Services Interim Management
Strategy. Because this will allow the time and opportunity for
all parties to work together to find a long term, practical
approach to off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras without the
fear of litigation.
No question the National Park Service has been out of
compliance with the law for the past 35 years. That must be
remedied. A management plan must be developed. However,
residents and visitors as well as the local economy should not
have to suffer in the meantime.
I've heard from local officials and hundreds, hundreds of
concerned constituents that the economic damage to the area as
a result of the consent decree issued last April would be
devastating. Furthermore high gas prices and other economic
woes have made for hard times for our tourism industry.
Severely limiting access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a
favorite destination, only makes a tough situation even worse
for folks who rely on tourism for their livelihood.
Additionally, managing the seashore through the courts
without allowing for public input is the wrong way to come to a
resolution on this issue. To ensure that a long term,
sustainable solution is reached, public involvement is
absolutely critical. Access to beach areas for fishing and
other recreational activities is a long standing tradition that
I believe can be continued with the appropriate safeguards for
public safety and protection of the seashore's natural
environment.
I appreciate the fact that Warren Judge, Chairman of the
Dare County Board of Commissioners is here today to testify in
support of this bill. I also have a statement from North
Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore, Mark Basnight in support
of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Senator Basnight's
letter* be made a part of the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, I encourage you to support this
legislation. It is the right thing to do for the local
community, for North Carolina and for this National Park. I
appreciate this opportunity to make this statement today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Dole, for your
statement. I'm looking forward to also a statement from
Representative Dingell. Senator Dole, like the others, I will
certainly excuse you from the hearing here.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Let me call the first panel to the
desk. Soon as they're situated I'm going to call on Senator
Smith for any remarks he may have.
This is considered an Administration panel. We have Daniel
N. Wenk, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior; and, Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for the National
Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
Welcome and I'm now going to call on Senator Smith for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It's a
pleasure to serve with you.
I speak today on behalf of S. 3148, the Oregon Caves
Monument Boundary Adjustment. It's an act of 2008. I appreciate
the work of this subcommittee in bringing this legislation
before us. The Oregon Caves Monument is a very special place to
the residents of Oregon, particularly to those in the Southern
Oregon's Illinois Valley.
Ever since their unofficial discovery, most likely by the
Takelma Indians of Southern Oregon and the subsequent re-
discovery by Elijah Davidson in the fall of 1874, this jewel of
Southern Oregon has illuminated the culture and history of the
region. When President Taft established the 480 acre Oregon
National Caves Monument in 1909, he did so to preserve this
wonderful and unique site for generations to come. The caves
have played a key role in the development of the community of
Cave Junction in Josephine County.
In the 1920s the Oregon Cave's Cavemen were formed by a
group of local businessmen and drafted Neanderthals to promote
tourism to the caves in the region. With their cavemen attire
and zany antics, they were a superb promotion for the caves and
attracted thousands of tourists to the region. In 1931 a local
designer and builder named Gust Lium, built the Oregon Caves
chateau which today still stands as one of three great lodges
in Oregon.
The chateau has played a critical role in bringing tourists
to this remote location. Today the chateau is maintained by the
Illinois Valley Community Development Corporation. An
organization dedicated to improving economic conditions in
Oregon's rural southwest.
Next year will mark the Oregon Caves National Monument
centennial anniversary. I believe this is a fitting time to
discuss the options before us. While I'm generally supportive
of the legislation to expand the monument's boundary, I do have
some concerns and would like to work with the subcommittee and
with Senator Wyden to make some important changes to this bill.
In addition to the critical aspects of tourism which has
help build the local community, elements of agriculture,
forestry and grazing have been equally, if not more important
to the cultural and historical development of this community.
To this end I have three concerns regarding this legislation.
My first concern is that the bill's provisions on grazing
do not adequately protect Mr. Phil Krouse, whose family has
brought their livestock to graze on these allotments since the
1930s. Mr. Krouse has prepared a statement for today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this be included in the record,
his statement.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Akaka. No objection. It will be included in the
record.
Senator Smith. I hope to work with the subcommittee to
ensure that the regulations managing these allotments remain
with the Forest Service in the Bureau of Land Management until
such time as Mr. Krouse is willing to accept a voluntary and
private buy out of his grazing permits, subsequently
relinquishing them back to the Federal Government.
My second concern relates to forest contiguous to the
monument. The forests around Oregon caves are in need of
thinning and restoration to reduce the risk of catastrophic
fire. The historic chateau, in particular, must be protected
from the threat of wildlife.
The National Park Service is fully capable of carrying out
fuels treatment projects. I wish to include a condition in this
legislation that the Park Service complete adequate fuels
treatment projects on the lands acquired from the Forest
Service.
My third concern relates to hunting. Since lands
administered by the Park Service are generally off limits to
hunting. However, Oregon hunters, particularly bear hunters use
the area discussed in this bill. According to the National Park
Service there are roughly 70 park units that currently allow
hunting.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has statewide
jurisdiction for managing wildlife for hunting as well as
managing the hunting seasons. So I would hope that the Park
Service would work with ODF and W to determine how best to
accommodate both hunting and tourism in the woods around Oregon
Caves. After all, the caves were discovered by a bear hunter
and his dog.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee's time. I look
forward to working with you as this bill expanding the Oregon
Caves National Monument moves through the legislative process.
I thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator, for
your testimony. I want to include in the record the testimony
of Representative John Dingell to the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell, U.S. Representative From
Michigan, on S. 3247
I write to express my wholehearted support for S. 3247, the River
Raisin National Battlefield Act, which will be under consideration in
the Subcommittee on July 30. I have introduced companion legislation,
H.R. 6740, in the House. It is my sincere hope that with your help we
can see this legislation signed into law by the end of the year.
S. 3247 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to accept the
donation of lands related to the Battles of the River Raisin in Monroe
or Wayne County, Michigan and to designate those lands as a unit of the
National Park System, to be known as River Raisin National Battlefield
Park. The River Raisin Battlefield is the site of a major engagement of
the War of 1812 that occurred during the American campaign in the
winter of 1813 to retake Fort Detroit from the British. Although the
Americans repelled the British in first battle at the settlement, then
known as Frenchtown, along the River Raisin, the second battle ended in
major defeat and significant loss of life, causing General William
Henry Harrison to describe the occurrences in Frenchtown as a
``national calamity.'' The disastrous loss gave birth to the rallying
cry, ``Remember the Raisin,'' aiding recruitment efforts for Harrison's
spring 1813 campaign, and ultimately spurred the American troops to
victory at the Battle of the Thames nine months later, effectively
ending the War.
Many reasons underscore the importance of support for S. 3247. I
have outlined them below:
The Battle of the River Raisin is arguably the largest land
engagement during the War of 1812. While the battle was a
devastating loss to the American Army, the tragedy created a
rallying point for U.S. troops and led to a decisive American
victory effectively ending the War.
The casualties incurred at the River Raisin rank it among
the most disastrous battles for the American Army during the
entire War of 1812. 397 Americans were listed as killed or
missing in action and 536 listed as prisoners of war.
Designation of the site as a National Park will honor the
sacrifice of those patriots who gave their lives in defense of
our fledgling country.
The federal government will obtain River Raisin Battlefield
at no cost. The good people of Monroe and/or Wayne Counties,
Michigan will donate the battlefield to the federal government.
The local community values the River Raisin Battlefield for
its historical and national significance, and its designation
as a National Park enjoys vast public support. Indeed,
designation would have positive economic benefits for the local
community and state through increased heritage tourism.
There is little debate that the River Raisin is a nationally
significant site.
The National Park Service is the only entity with the
expertise to interpret and care for a site of such national
importance. We owe the many Americans who died at the River
Raisin defending our young country the sufficient dignity and
esteem inherent in becoming a unit of our National Park System
without delay.
Designation of the River Raisin battlefield as a National Park will
afford the site with much deserved national recognition. Through
enactment of S. 3247, not only can we commemorate the heroism of those
who lost their lives during the Battle, but also add insight into an
important chapter in our nation's history.
Senator Akaka. Again, I want to welcome our witnesses
today. We will include your full written statement in the
hearing record. So I would ask that you please limit your
remarks to no more than 5 minutes. Following your statements we
will have questions.
So, Mr. Wenk, will you please begin with your statement?
STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before this subcommittee to present the Administration's
views on the 11 subjects on today's agenda. I would like to
submit our full statements for each of these subjects for the
record and summarize the Administration's position on these
bills.
The Department supports the following bills.
S. 2093, which would designate a segment of the Missisquoi
and Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for study for
potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
S. 2535, which would expand the boundary of Martin Van
Buren National Historic Site.
S. 2561, which would require the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a theme study to identify sites and resources to
commemorate and interpret the cold war.
S. 3011, which would expand the boundaries of Palo Alto
Battlefield National Historic Site.
S. 3158, which would extend the authority for Cape Cod
National Seashore Advisory Commission.
S. 3226, which would rename the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace
National Historic Site in the State of Kentucky as the Abraham
Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park.
H.R. 5137, which would ensure that hunting remains a
purpose of the New River Gorge National River.
The reasons for our positions on these bills are explained
in detail in our full statements. For some of the bills we are
requesting that the committee make minor amendments to the bill
language. Explanations of these requested amendments are also
contained in the full statements.
On the remaining four bills, the position of the Department
is as follows.
On S. 1816, which would authorize the Secretary of Interior
to establish a commemorative Votes for Women History Trail
Route in connection with Women's Rights National Historical
Park, the Department could support the bill if it is amended to
delete the grant authorizations in sections three and four.
These grant programs would divert available resources from
broader historic preservation purposes to specific sets of
beneficiaries and duplicate existing authorities.
The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with
the committee to see if we could achieve the goals of these two
sections within our existing authorities.
On S. 3148, which would modify the boundary of Oregon Caves
National Monument, the Department supports the intent of the
bill, but recommends deferring action to give us the
opportunity to explore ways to maintain continuity and
interagency coordination on issues related to forest health and
recreational opportunities. The U.S. Forest Service which
currently manages the 4,070 acres that would be added to the
monument, is working on a multi-year effort to reduce fuels
under a comprehensive forest plan, which in turn would benefit
monument resources that are at risk from fire and fire
suppression damage. The Department also finds it important to
acknowledge that hunting is allowed by the U.S. Forest Service
on the lands that would be transferred to the National Park
Service.
We would like to continue our discussions with the Forest
Service on these matters prior to further action on this
legislation.
On S. 3247, which would provide for the designation of the
River Raisin National Battlefield Park in the State of
Michigan, the Department recommends deferring action. Our
recommendation does not detract from the significance and
importance of this battlefield site and the historical events
associated with this major engagement of the War of 1812. The
special resource study and the National Historic Landmark
nomination currently underway need to be completed so a
determination could be made if the site is nationally
significant and is both suitable and feasible to be designated
as a unit of the National Park System.
With public involvement these two efforts will provide
needed information to determine the best path for preservation
and interpretation of the battlefield. We expect both to be
completed in 2 to 3 years from now.
On S. 3113, which would re-instate the Interim Management
Strategy governing off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, North Carolina pending the completion of an
ORV management plan in issuance of a final rule for ORV use the
Department cannot support the legislation. The Department
supports allowing public use and access of National Seashores
to the greatest extent possible while ensuring protection for
wildlife there including the federally protected species that
are the focus of our present concern.
We believe that the April 30, 2008, consent decree will
accomplish its objective better than the original 2007 Interim
Management Strategy for the period until a final ORV plan and
rule are adopted.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I'd be pleased
to answer questions that you may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Wenk follow:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel N. Wenk, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
H.R. 5137
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 5137, to ensure that hunting remains a purpose of the New River
Gorge National River.
The Department strongly supports enactment of H.R. 5137. This bill
would amend Section 1106 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of
1978, the New River Gorge National River's (park) authorizing
legislation to require the Secretary of the Interior to permit hunting
and fishing on National Park Service (NPS) lands within the park,
instead of allowing this authority to be discretionary. If enacted,
this bill would provide legislative direction to the Department on
hunting and fishing at New River Gorge. We believe that enactment of
the legislation will maintain important protections that allow hunting
in the park to be managed consistent with the NPS mission to ensure
public safety and to conserve the park's natural resources, including
wildlife and its habitat. The bill is consistent with other policy
statements from Congress and the Park Service, and also advances the
purposes of Executive Order 13443, ``Facilitation of Hunting Heritage
and Wildlife Conservation.''
The New River Gorge National River was established in 1978, by
Public Law 95-625, to conserve and protect 53 miles of the New River as
a free-flowing waterway. Section 1106 states in part that ``The
Secretary may permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters under his
jurisdiction within the boundaries of the New River Gorge National
River in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, and he may
designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or
fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety,
administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and
enjoyment.'' We believe that enactment of H.R. 5137 would have the
narrow effect of requiring a continuation of an ongoing recreational
activity in the park while maintaining the Service's ability to
continue to manage the activity in a manner that protects public safety
and retains natural resource and wildlife conservation tools such as
adaptive management.
The park's current GMP, dated November 1982, addressed hunting as
an approved recreational activity, stating ``Recreational hunting of
game will be permitted in accordance with State regulations, with the
exception of jointly designated limited closures for reasons of public
safety or wildlife preservation.'' Since adoption of the GMP, the park
has permitted hunting on lands owned and administered by the NPS,
except in areas of developed recreational facilities, such as river
accesses and campgrounds, for reasons of public safety.
In an April 10, 2002, letter, the Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility pointed out the need for a regulation to
be promulgated to permit hunting at New River Gorge National River. On
September 25, 2003, an interim final rule was published in the Federal
Register that would have allowed hunting to continue within the park.
The rule was written to become effective immediately. On October 9,
2003, the NPS Director received a letter from a law firm representing
the Fund for Animals that questioned the legality of the interim final
regulation.
The 2004 Interior Appropriations Act, Section 150, stated that
``The National Park Service shall issue a special regulation concerning
continued hunting at New River Gorge National River in compliance with
the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, with opportunity
for public comment, and shall also comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act as appropriate. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the September 25, 2003 interim final rule authorizing
continued hunting at New River Gorge National River shall be in effect
until the final special regulation supersedes it.''
The NPS was about to begin a GMP for New River Gorge National River
when Congress enacted the 2004 directive. As part of the GMP, it was
decided that the NPS would undertake an extensive public involvement
process on the issue of hunting within the park. The draft GMP includes
four action alternatives; three of those alternatives would allow
continued hunting within the park. About 300 people attended one or
more of the three public meetings held on the hunting issue, and the
public was overwhelmingly in favor of the continuation of hunting at
New River Gorge National River. The draft GMP is being finalized, and
we hope to release it for public review by the end of this year.
As part of the process to revise the GMP, the NPS contracted with
the Virginia Tech Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Services to
assess the impacts of hunting in the park. The assessment, which was
finalized in 2006, concluded the ``hunting conducted in accordance with
existing laws and regulations should have no adverse impact on the
fauna and flora within the boundaries of New River Gorge''. We do not
believe that enactment of this legislation would have any effect on
this science-based assessment and its conclusions.
The NPS is cognizant of the importance of hunting to the local
community as well as the ecological implications of hunting within New
River Gorge National River. The ``no hunting alternative'' has proven
to be very controversial with the State of West Virginia and with local
hunters. However, the NPS has determined that under the existing
legislation the park must include an analysis of the no hunting
alternative to ensure that the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act are adequately met. When the draft GMP is
released for public review it will include a preferred alternative
stating the NPS's position on continued hunting at New River Gorge
National River, regardless of whether or not this legislation is
enacted. After the GMP is completed, NPS would be required to
promulgate a special regulation for any preferred alternative involving
hunting on park lands within the national river.
Executive Order 13443, ``Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and
Wildlife Conservation'' was signed by President Bush on August 17,
2007, directing the Department of the Interior and other Cabinet
officers to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting
opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. We
are pleased that H.R. 5137 is consistent with this direction and would
provide a specific way to contribute toward the results of E.O. 13443.
That concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you or any members of the subcommittee may have.
S. 1816
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1816, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
commemorative ``Votes for Women History Trail Route'' in connection
with Women's Rights National Historical Park. The trail route would
link sites that are historically and thematically associated with the
struggle for women's suffrage in the State of New York.
The Department could support this legislation if amended to delete
grant authorizations in sections 3 and 4.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law
105-277) provided funding for a Women's Rights National History Trail
feasibility study. The study team documented women's rights history-
related properties reaching from Maine to Virginia, including the
District of Columbia. The largest numbers of properties in the
Northeast were in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of
New York. The study team considered a long-distance trail in the
corridor between Boston and Buffalo, but determined that this concept
was not viable based upon the lack of properties between these two
places. The study also found that the trail would not meet the criteria
as a national historic trail under the National Trails System Act.
The study concluded that significant concentrations of resources
associated with the struggle for women's suffrage in the United States
lie within an area stretching from Syracuse, New York in the east
through the Finger Lakes region westerly to Rochester. In the midst of
this concentration of resources are the towns of Seneca Falls and
Waterloo, New York, where the first women's rights convention in
America was planned and held in 1848. Women's Rights National
Historical Park, established in 1980 by Public Law 96-607, preserves
and interprets the important sites associated with the formal beginning
of the struggle for equal rights for women in the United States. It was
at Seneca Falls in 1848 that the Declaration of Sentiments was signed,
advocating for political, economic, educational, religious, and
societal equality for women.
The final report described three concepts that could support the
recognition, promotion, and protection of properties associated with
women's rights history: A ``Votes for Women'' History Trail, a
vehicular tour route linking together a number of historic properties
associated with women's suffrage in New York State; a National Women's
Rights History Project focused on expanding the number of properties
listed on the National Register of Historic Places that are associated
with women's rights; and a National Women's Rights History Project and
Partnerships Network that would offer financial and technical
assistance to participating members for interpretive and educational
program development through the use of partnerships and matching
grants. A final report was transmitted to Congress in January 2004.
Section 2 of S. 1816 would amend Public Law 96-607 to establish a
``Votes for Women History Trail Route'', a vehicular tour route linking
sites associated with the 72-year struggle for women's suffrage across
New York State, a movement which spread throughout the nation. The
trail route would be administered by the National Park Service through
Women's Rights National Historical Park. The National Park Service
would be authorized to support the development of interpretive signage
and to develop and disseminate interpretive and educational materials
and media to provide public understanding and appreciation of the
resources along the trail route and their respective roles in the
women's suffrage movement. Sites along the trail route could include
the Susan B. Anthony House in Rochester, the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca
Falls, and Harriet Tubman Home in Auburn.
Section 2 of the bill would also authorize the Secretary to enter
into cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies, the State of
New York, and other governmental and private entities to facilitate the
development of the trail route and to provide technical and financial
assistance to such organizations to achieve the purposes of the
legislation. The public/private partnerships envisioned would provide
opportunities for the public to learn about the rich, yet largely
unknown history of the struggle for women's suffrage in the United
States, while enhancing preservation of the remaining tangible
resources associated with this effort.
Section 3 of the bill would establish a National Women's Rights
History Project National Registry that would authorize the Secretary to
provide grants to State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to assist
in surveying, evaluating, and nominating women's rights history
properties for consideration to be listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. Such activities are already within the purview of
existing SHPO responsibilities. This legislation would therefore
duplicate SHPO responsibilities, and divert limited available funds for
broad SHPO responsibilities to a specific set of beneficiaries and
purposes. SHPOs already have the ability to add sites to the National
Park Service's website, ``Places Where Women Made History.'' The
website lists historic places associated with women's history in New
York and Massachusetts, travel itineraries, maps, photographs, and
other information about these historic properties. The website has the
capacity to provide opportunities for citizens of this nation, and
those outside of the United States, to learn about the sites and people
associated with the struggle for women's rights in America. These
struggles remain relevant in American society today, and provide
inspiration to others seeking equal rights in their own countries.
Finally, section 4 of S. 1816 provides for the establishment of a
National Women's Rights History Project Partnerships Network, managed
through a nongovernmental entity, which would offer matching grants and
technical assistance for the purpose of providing interpretive,
educational, and historic preservation program development. The
establishment of such a network would earmark historic preservation
grants for a specific set of beneficiaries and would divert available
resources for broader historic preservation purposes. NPS already has
the authority to enter into collaborative proposals that could involve
a variety of property types and that would be anchored by one or more
National Register-eligible properties.
We believe that particular aspects of S. 1816 provide the
opportunity for all to gain a clear understanding and appreciation of
the sacrifices and contributions of those associated with the quest for
women's rights in the past, and for those who continue their work today
throughout the world. However, we also believe that particular aspects
of this legislation divert available resources from broader historic
preservation purposes to specific sets of beneficiaries and duplicates
existing authorities. The Department would welcome the opportunity to
work with the committee to further review existing NPS programs to
determine if we could achieve the goals of section 3 and 4 of the bill
within our existing authorities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you and the committee may have.
S. 2093
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2093, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a
segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for
study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation with the
amendments described in this testimony. However, the Department feels
that priority should be given to the previously authorized studies for
potential units of the National Park System, potential new National
Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System
and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet been
transmitted to the Congress. On April 24, 2008, the Department
testified in support of the House companion bill, H.R. 3667.
S. 2093 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the
segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers from the headwaters of the
rivers downstream to the confluence of that segment with the Missisquoi
Bay of Lake Champlain in the State of Vermont. A report that describes
the results of the study is required to be submitted to Congress not
later than three years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Two segments of the Missisquoi River are listed on the Nationwide
Rivers Inventory of candidate wild and scenic rivers. The mouth of the
river includes the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge which comprises
the Missisquoi River Delta and Missisquoi Bay on Lake Champlain. Upper
portions of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are prized for their scenic
beauty, recreational boating and fishing opportunities, and historic
and archaeological values.
The Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail parallels much of the upper
Missisquoi River, and offers excellent potential for public access and
recreational opportunities linked to the river and the broader river
valley. Portions of the river also serve as the route for the Northern
Forest Canoe Trail, based on the river's historical significance as a
travel route for the Abenaki Indians. Great Falls on the upper
Missisquoi is recognized as Vermont's largest undammed falls, and is
part of a series of spectacular gorges and falls located on the upper
river.
The State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has been
working extensively with communities of the upper Missisquoi watershed
to address river management issues related primarily to agricultural
run-off affecting water quality of the river and Missisquoi Bay/Lake
Champlain. The forum that has been created through these efforts offers
an ideal opportunity for the National Park Service to join the ANR and
local communities in a comprehensive study that would add broader
natural, recreational, and cultural considerations to the issues
already being considered. The ANR and affected communities of the upper
Missisquoi have all expressed their support for such a partnership-
based study.
The Department notes that several large hydroelectric generating
facilities are located on the lower Missisquoi River, making it
inappropriate for wild and scenic river consideration. In addition, a
segment of the upper Missisquoi River bows north into Canada, and
should be excluded from this study effort. Therefore, we recommend S.
2093 be amended to direct the study effort to the following river
segments:
The approximately 25-mile segment of the upper Missisquoi
from Enosburg Falls upstream to the Canada border in East
Richford;
The approximately 25-mile segment of the upper Missisquoi
from the Canada border in North Troy upstream to the headwaters
in Lowell;
Approximately 20 miles of the Trout River from its
confluence with the Missisquoi to its headwaters.
The Department would also like to work with the committee on
several technical amendments to make this bill consistent with other
recently enacted wild and scenic river study bills.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
S. 2535
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2535, a bill to revise the boundary of Martin Van Buren National
Historic Site, and for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of this bill.
S. 2535 would expand the boundary of the Martin Van Buren National
Historic Site, located in Kinderhook, New York, by including 261 acres
of land surrounding Lindenwald, the home and farm of the eighth
President of the United States. The bill also provides to the Secretary
of the Interior land acquisition authority from willing sellers, by
donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or by
exchange.
The boundary expansion would help visitors to understand the
importance of agriculture in President Van Buren's life and the role of
the changing agricultural economy before the Civil War. In addition to
protecting Lindenwald in its historic agricultural setting, the
legislation offers increased opportunities for public enjoyment of the
park and surrounding land as part of an overall plan that was developed
in concert with local landowners and governments.
The proposed acreage includes a farm cottage, one of only three
surviving structures associated with President Van Buren, and
agricultural lands that once were a part of his original 226-acre farm
and are still in active cultivation. Preserving these scenic and
historic resources is critical to the future of the park. The expanded
boundary would also allow the National Park Service (NPS) to replace
temporary operational facilities, including a maintenance garage
directly behind Lindenwald, and administrative facilities now housed in
trailers, with permanent buildings more appropriate to the historic
setting.
Martin Van Buren National Historic Site was established by Public
Law 93-486 to commemorate the life and work of President Martin Van
Buren through the preservation and interpretation of his home and farm.
The 39-acre park predominately consists of a prominent mansion located
within the present boundary, a factor that narrows the focus of
interpretation to a traditional house tour. Although agrarian ideals
formed a central theme of Van Buren's political philosophy,
agricultural components of the 226 original acres of Lindenwald are
neither fully protected nor available for interpretation.
Kinderhook, New York, part of the Hudson River Valley, was a rural
farming area when the site was established in 1974. Since then,
suburban, residential and commercial development has begun to threaten
the area surrounding the park. This prompted the NPS to undertake a
comprehensive study of the area in 2003, and to address concerns such
as protecting the historic setting and enhancing opportunities for
interpretation. The boundary study identified 24 contributing
characteristics and features outside of the current park boundary that
can be traced directly to Van Buren's tenure at Lindenwald. Expansion
of the boundary to include these resources will provide for future
protection of park-related resources and scenic values, and increase
public understanding and appreciation of the life and ideals of Martin
Van Buren, a preeminent politician during the Nation's turbulent
antebellum years.
Park managers have a close working relationship with the present
owners of the land proposed for addition to the boundary of the park,
some of whom will continue to farm the land and have agreed to make
portions of their land available to visitors for a trail to enhance
interpretation of the park. Within the proposed 261-acre boundary, 25
acres are expected to be donated in fee to the NPS and 173 acres are
expected to be donated in the form of conservation easements. The NPS
would seek to acquire the remaining 63 acres through purchase of
easements or fee interests from willing sellers. If acquired in fee,
the cost would be approximately $667,000, subject to NPS priorities and
the availability of appropriations. The majority of the land will
remain in agricultural use. Monitoring of the conservation easements
will be done by NPS personnel through the park's existing operations
budget. The conservation easement lands would remain on the local tax
rolls.
The only structure that would be acquired on the 261 acres is an
800-square foot historic cottage that is in sound condition, but will
require some improvements such as painting the wood siding and
repairing decaying window frames. Some of this cost could be paid
through park maintenance funds, but if more extensive repairs are
needed depending on the future use of the cottage, funds would be
subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations. The
future use of the cottage will be determined in the general management
planning process, which just began for the existing park.
Should this legislation be signed into law, the general management
planning process also would determine the need to relocate operational,
maintenance or administrative facilities on the lands included in the
park by this boundary addition, to move some of these facilities
outside the park boundaries or to address the code and safety issues in
the facilities' current location. The park currently rents two double-
wide trailers for administrative facilities, and houses curatorial
storage in a deteriorating barn. Located adjacent to the trailers is a
shed, built by NPS, that is used for visitor contact. The park also
uses a garage for a maintenance facility that has serious code and
worker safety issues and that is intruding on the historic setting of
the Van Buren house. It is estimated it would cost $1.9-$2.8 million to
address these two priority issues with or without a boundary change,
since the temporary facilities are inadequate to be used in the long-
term. Any final decisions would be made as part of the general
management planning process, and if included in the final plan, would
be subject to the budget prioritization process of the NPS.
This legislation enjoys broad support from various constituencies
interested in conservation, historic preservation, and agricultural
sustainability, including the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation; the Columbia Land Conservancy;
the Open Space Institute; the Columbia County Board of Supervisors; the
Friends of Lindenwald; the Kinderhook Town Board; the Kinderhook
Village Board; the Valatie Village Board; the Columbia County Tourism
Department; and many other public organizations and local agencies.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I am pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
S. 2561
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 2561. This bill would require
that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a theme study to identify
sites and resources associated with the Cold War and to recommend ways
to commemorate and interpret that period of our nation's history.
The Department supports this legislation as we believe that it is
wholly appropriate for the National Park Service to undertake a study
that will help ensure that the history of the Cold War era is preserved
for future generations of Americans. In the 108th Congress, the
Department testified in support of similar legislation, S. 452; however
there was no other action taken on the bill.
S. 2561 would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
National Historic Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources
in the United States that are significant to the Cold War. The bill
specifically provides that the study consider the inventory of Cold War
resources that has been compiled by the Department of Defense and other
historical studies and research on various types of military resources.
It also requires the study to include recommendations for commemorating
these resources and for establishing cooperative arrangements with
other entities.
We want to note that the study would not cover every resource that
may be significant to the history of the Cold War as it affected our
nation, since it would not include sites outside the United States such
as U.S. installations in Germany or South Korea. It is necessary to
limit the scope of the study to sites and resources within the United
States, as S. 2561 does, because we do not have the authority to
identify resources that are beyond our borders for potential National
Historic Landmark status.
In addition to authorizing the theme study, S. 2561 would require
the Secretary to prepare and publish an interpretive handbook on the
Cold War and to disseminate information gathered through the study in
other ways. S. 2561 would authorize appropriations of $500,000 to carry
out the legislation.
National Historic Landmark theme studies are funded from a variety
of sources including, in some cases, the special resource study budget,
which is about $935,000 in FY 2008. There are 37 studies previously
authorized by Congress that are being funded from the special resource
study budget, nearly half of which will have at least some funding
needs beyond Fiscal Year 2008. Our highest priority is to complete
pending studies, though we expect to start newly authorized studies as
soon as funds are made available.
The National Historic Landmarks program was established by the Act
of August 21, 1935, commonly known as the Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C.
461 et. seq.) and is implemented according to 36 CFR Part 65. The
program's mission is to identify those places that best illustrate the
themes, events, or persons that are nationally significant to the
history of the United States and that retain a high degree of
integrity. Potential national historic landmarks are often identified
through theme studies such as the one that would be authorized by this
legislation.
Theme studies are not the same as special resource studies, which
assess the suitability and feasibility of adding a site to the National
Park System. Theme studies may identify sites that may be appropriate
candidates for special resource studies, but these studies themselves
do not evaluate sites for possible addition to the National Park
System. Therefore, theme studies do not have the potential to lead
directly to new operation, maintenance or other costs for the National
Park Service.
For example, in 2008, the National Park Service completed and
transmitted to Congress a National Landmark Theme Study on the World
War II Home Front. Through a partnership with the Organization of
American Historians (OAH), NPS focused on themes that saw
transformation during this period: civil rights with regard to an
integrated work force, migration and resettlement to support
mobilization, changes in gender roles as women entered the work force,
labor relations as unions flexed new-found powers, economic
mobilization and government cooperation with the private sector to
support the war effort, technological advances, popular culture, and
architectural change. The National Park Service is also conducting
several other theme studies, including one on American Civil Rights,
one related to the history of the labor movement, another on the
earliest inhabitants of Eastern North America, and another on sites
associated with Japanese Americans during World War II.
At the moment, the history of the Cold War has some presence in the
National Park System and on the two lists of historic sites maintained
by the National Park Service. The National Park System includes one
unit related to the Cold War, the Minuteman Missile National Historic
Site in South Dakota, which Congress established in 1999 to preserve
and interpret the role of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in our
nation's defense system.
Out of 2,444 designated national historic landmarks, at least five
recognize civilian or military aspects of Cold War history; and out of
approximately 76,000 listings on the National Register of Historic
Places, at least 17 (including the five landmarks) are related to the
Cold War. The relatively small number of recognized sites is due in
large part to the fact that the Cold War has only recently been viewed
as historically important. With or without a theme study, these numbers
would likely increase over time, and the Department of Defense could
take steps on its own to identify these sites under their jurisdiction.
National Historic Landmark program regulations require consultation
with Federal, state, and local governments; national and statewide
associations; and a variety of other interested parties. Through
partnering with a national historical organization, using a peer-review
process, and consulting with appropriate subject experts as well as the
general public, the National Park Service would ensure that the
broadest historical perspectives are represented in any study it
undertakes.
In addition, we have been informed by the Department of Justice
that the provisions of the bill that would require the Secretary of the
Interior to make recommendations to Congress concerning federal
protection for Cold War sites raise concerns with regard to the
Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, which reserves to the
President the power to decide whether it is necessary or expedient for
the Executive Branch to make legislative policy recommendations to the
Congress. The Administration would be pleased to provide language to
resolve these constitutional concerns.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
S. 3011
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 3011, a bill to amend the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic
Site Act of 1991 to expand the boundaries of the historic site, and for
other purposes.
The Department supports S. 3011 with an amendment to provide the
correct map reference for the boundary expansion. On June 5, 2008, the
Department testified in support of H.R. 4828, an almost identical bill,
before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands.
S. 3011 would amend Public Law 102-304 to adjust the boundary of
the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site (park) to include the
addition of approximately 34 acres. The lands added to the boundary
would remain under the ownership of the Brownsville Community
Foundation (Foundation), Brownsville, Texas. The Foundation and the
National Park Service (NPS) would co-manage and administer the lands
added to the boundary through a cooperative agreement. There would be
no acquisition costs associated with the boundary expansion and we
estimate NPS's management, administrative, interpretive, resource
protection, and maintenance costs to be approximately $200,000
annually. Additional infrastructure improvements would include an ADA
accessible trail, a visitor parking lot, trail and pavilion benches,
the resaca overlook, interpretive panels and replica cannons, an NPS
sign, a security gate, and utilities at an estimated cost of $360,000.
The land proposed for addition to the park is known as `Resaca de
la Palma', a National Historic Landmark. Located approximately four
miles south of the existing park boundary and in the Heart of the City
of Brownsville, Texas, the land is closely connected to Palo Alto
Battlefield National Historic Site, the only unit in the National Park
System to commemorate the Mexican War, both historically and
culturally.
Resaca de la Palma is the site of the second battle of the U.S. War
with Mexico. The battle proved decisive for American forces and forced
Mexican troops back across the Rio Grande River. The site is hallowed
ground for many, including descendents of more than 214 individuals
from the United States and Mexico who lost their lives at this site on
May 9, 1846. After the battle, many visitors to Palo Alto and Resaca de
la Palma viewed the land as having been transformed by the bloody
sacrifices made there. That sentiment remains today and many residents
of Brownsville believe that both of the battlefields should be
preserved to honor the memory of the soldiers who fought and died
there.
Although the original battlefield at Resaca de la Palma extended
over hundreds of acres, today only 34 acres remain undeveloped. In
essence, Resaca de la Palma represents an oasis, surrounded by a
developing city. In addition to its rich cultural heritage, these 34
acres provide habitat for migratory and resident birds and small
mammals. The battlefield site also represents a typical but
disappearing landscape of the Rio Grande delta and conserves native
chaparral, prairie, and brush.
Resaca de la Palma is easily accessible to community members and
visitors to the area. The 34 acres included in this boundary adjustment
also represent a rare community green space that will be preserved.
Existing structures include an interpretive trail and exhibits, a
covered shelter, and a viewing platform overlooking the resaca, the
literal translation of which is: the dry river bed of the palms.
The National Park System includes many successful examples of
philanthropic efforts that have added immeasurably to the preservation
of our nation's natural and cultural treasures. The partnership between
the NPS and the Foundation to co-manage Resaca de la Palma is another
successful example of this type of effort. Many hours have been donated
toward preserving Resaca de la Palma by board members, the park, and
individuals in the community. Additionally, several private and public
organizations have donated time and money to ensure Resaca de la Palma
remains protected and accessible to visitors. These include the Boy and
Girl Scouts of America, the City of Brownsville, the Cameron County
Sheriff Department, and the Texas Department of Transportation.
The Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site 1988 General
Management Plan proposed including Resaca de la Palma within the park's
administrative boundary. This legislation would achieve that goal.
However, without this legislation, the NPS would be limited in its
ability to interpret, maintain, or manage the Resaca de la Palma area
for future generations.
We suggest one amendment to S. 3011. On page 2, lines 13 and 14,
the correct map information is: ``entitled Palo Alto Battlefield NHS
Proposed Boundary Expansion, numbered 469/80,012, and dated May 21,
2008.''
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or other members of the subcommittee might have.
S. 3113
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 3113, a bill to reinstate the Interim Management
Strategy governing off-road vehicle (ORV) use at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore (Seashore), North Carolina, pending the completion of an ORV
management plan and issuance of a final rule for ORV use. The Interim
Management Strategy was adopted on July 13, 2007 by the National Park
Service to provide resource protection guidance in areas subject to ORV
use. The bill would make inapplicable the consent decree that
implements a settlement agreement modifying this Interim Management
Strategy, to which all parties involved in a lawsuit agreed just three
months ago.
The Department supports allowing public use and access at Cape
Hatteras National Seashore to the greatest extent possible while
ensuring protection for the Seashore's wildlife, including the
federally protected species that are the focus of present concern, for
this and future generations of park visitors. Because we believe that
the April 30, 2008, consent decree will accomplish this objective
better than the original 2007 Interim Management Strategy for the
period until a final ORV plan and rule are adopted, the Department
cannot support S. 3113.
Background on Protected Species and ORV Management at Cape Hatteras
Beach driving, also known as ORV use, predates the 1937
authorization of the National Seashore and has become a popular method
of access for recreational pursuits such as swimming, fishing, and
water sports.
Executive Order 11644 (1972), amended by Executive Order 11989
(1977), requires the National Park Service to issue regulations on the
designation of specific trails and areas for ORV use based upon
resource protection, visitor safety, and minimization of conflicts
among uses of agency lands. The Executive Order directs that these
``[a]reas and trails . . . be located to minimize harassment of
wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats.'' Furthermore,
``. . . whenever [the agency] determines that the use of off-road
vehicles will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on . . .
wildlife (or) wildlife habitat, [it shall] immediately close such areas
or trails to the type of off-road vehicle causing such effects until
such time as [it] determines that such adverse effects have been
eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future
occurrence.'' In response to the Presidents' direction, the National
Park Service promulgated the regulation at 36 C.F.R. Sec. 4.10, which
requires the Park Service to designate, by special regulation, ORV use
areas and routes in compliance with Executive Order 11644. In 1978, the
Park Service drafted an interim ORV management plan for Cape Hatteras
National Seashore but never finalized it. In 1973 and 1990, the Park
Service drafted ORV regulations for the Seashore but never promulgated
them.
To date, the National Park Service has not met the requirements of
its own regulation. However, subsequent to a feasibility assessment
process which queried numerous stakeholder groups, in December 2007 the
Secretary of the Interior established a negotiated rulemaking committee
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to aid the Service in
the development of an ORV management plan and special regulation to
meet the requirements of 36 C.F.R.Sec. 4.10. The committee, which has
met five times thus far in 2008, is making progress toward this goal.
The committee is scheduled to meet again in September, October,
November, and December 2008. Under the April 30, 2008, consent decree,
the ORV management plan must be completed by December 31, 2010, and the
special regulation by April 1, 2011.
The Seashore is the breeding site for many species of beach-nesting
shorebirds and waterbirds, including the federally-listed threatened
piping plover, the state-listed threatened gull-billed tern, and a
number of species of concern including the common tern, least tern,
black skimmer, and the American oystercatcher. All of the above species
have experienced breeding population declines at Cape Hatteras over the
past 10-20 years. For example, in 1989 the Seashore had 15 breeding
pairs of the federally threatened piping plover. By 2001-2005, the
Seashore experienced only 2-3 pairs attempting to nest each year. The
numbers of colonial waterbird nests on the Seashore have declined from
1,155 nests in 1999 to 217 nests in 2007. Individual colonial waterbird
species have experienced the following reduction in nests on the
Seashore from 1999 to 2007: gull-billed tern, 103 nests to zero; least
tern, 306 nests to 196; common tern, 440 nests to 19; and black
skimmer, 306 nests to 2. American oystercatcher numbers on the Seashore
have declined from 41 breeding pairs in 1999 to 22 breeding pairs in
2007.
While a complex array of variables including weather events and
predation contribute to these declines, human disturbance is certainly
a factor, reflecting the inherent conflict resulting from the fact that
peak visitor demand for access to key breeding sites, which are also
popular fishing sites, occurs at approximately the same time as the
primary period of wildlife breeding activity. The overall trend of
declining numbers and the low numbers for specific species (piping
plover, gull-billed tern, common tern, and black skimmer) at Cape
Hatteras National Seashore has been of particular concern, because the
National Park Service by law and policy is committed to preventing
impairment of park resources, and preserving and restoring the natural
abundance, diversity and distribution of native animal populations and
ecosystems in which they occur in units of the National Park System.
In July 2007, the National Park Service approved an Interim
Protected Species Management Strategy and Environmental Assessment for
the Seashore. This Interim Management Strategy provides guidance for
the protection of beach-nesting shorebirds and sea turtles, and a
threatened beach plant species, until a long-term ORV management plan
and regulation can be developed. Meanwhile, in consultation with the
negotiated rulemaking committee that was established in December 2007,
the Service is working on the development of a long-term ORV management
plan and environmental impact statement.
In October 2007, Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon
Society, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center
(Plaintiffs), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina challenging the Interim Management
Strategy. In December, the complaint was amended to include the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as co-defendant based on Endangered Species
Act claims related to its biological opinion. Additionally, two local
counties, Dare and Hyde, and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation
Alliance, which is a coalition of local ORV and fishing groups, were
granted intervenor status by the court. All of these entities are
members of the negotiated rulemaking committee.
On February 20, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction requesting the court to direct the National Park
Service to completely close six key breeding sites (Bodie Island Spit,
Cape Point, South Beach, Hatteras Spit, North Ocracoke, and South
Ocracoke) to ORV use on a year-round basis consistent with the 2005
management recommendations provided to the Park Service by scientists
from the U.S. Geological Survey (referred to as the ``USGS
protocols.'') These six sites are also the most popular fishing areas
that are traditionally accessed by ORV users.
In April 2008, the Plaintiffs, Federal defendants, and intervenors
jointly filed a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court to
implement a settlement reached by the parties, which the court issued
on April 30. Reaching this settlement prevented a complete year-round
shutdown of ORV access to the six popular fishing areas. The consent
decree is not expected to affect the fall or winter fishing season. It
will also allow many areas of the beach to remain open to recreational
use, even during the breeding season.
The consent decree provides for increased resource protection
during the breeding season, while allowing for continued ORV access to
the six key sites during the non-breeding season. It addresses
individual species concerns and specifies buffer sizes and types,
timing restrictions, and monitoring efforts to protect beach-nesting
bird species, including piping plover, American oystercatcher, and four
species of colonial waterbirds; and three species of federally
protected sea turtles. It settles all claims raised in the lawsuit and
does not set a precedent for the long-term ORV management plan or the
regulation.
Compared to the Interim Management Strategy, the consent decree
includes larger, non-discretionary buffer distances to protect beach-
nesting birds once breeding activity is observed. It also includes a
new prohibition on night driving on seashore beaches from 10:00 p.m.
until 6:00 a.m. during the sea turtle nesting season. The consent
decree does not directly mandate an outright closure of the six popular
fishing areas. The National Park Service had to close these areas
earlier this summer, however, to comply with the consent decree's
criteria for determining buffer distances once breeding activity was
observed. These areas are being reopened as breeding activity
concludes. We are working hard to keep the public informed of beach
access status.
Many sections of beach have remained open to ORV and pedestrian
access during the breeding season. As of July 17, 2008, of
approximately 66.6 total miles of Seashore beaches, 26.1 miles were
open to ORVs and pedestrians, an additional 25.5 miles were open to
pedestrians only (totalling 51.6 miles open and accessible to
pedestrians), 3.7 miles were ``open to pedestrians'' but access was not
practical, and 11.3 miles were closed to ORVs and pedestrians to
protect breeding and nesting areas.
Preliminary Results of Resource Protection Measures Taken in Accordance
with the Consent Decree
Although the breeding season is not yet completed, it appears that
actions taken under the consent decree have been beneficial for
resource protection. Under the consent decree, the Seashore has
experienced an increase in the number of breeding pairs of piping
plover from 6 pair in 2006 and 2007, to 11 pairs in 2008. As of July
19, 2008, there were 83 sea turtle nests on the Seashore compared to 49
nests last year at this time.
S. 3113
S. 3113 would reinstate the Interim Strategy for ORV use at the
Seashore and declare the consent decree inapplicable. A return to
managing the Seashore under the Interim Management Strategy would
result in a reduction in the size, frequency, and timing of the buffers
protecting federally and state listed species, and a likely reduction
in the increase in nesting activity observed in 2008.
We reiterate our commitment to providing for everyone's enjoyment
of Cape Hatteras National Seashore's wonderful resources to the
greatest extent possible while ensuring protection of park resources,
including federally protected species, for this and future generations.
We strongly believe that completion of the long-term ORV management
plan and special regulation is the best way to involve all interested
parties, including the general public, and meet the Service's
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, National Park
Service Organic Act, Cape Hatteras National Seashore enabling act,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other applicable laws. Through this
process, the National Park Service will determine how to provide
appropriate resource protection and reasonable visitor access at the
Seashore. While we continue to implement the consent decree, we are
actively working with all interested stakeholders in the development of
the regulation and plan, and we look forward to continuing to work with
the subcommittee, the local communities, and the involved stakeholders
as these processes move forward.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
S. 3148
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3148, a bill
to modify the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument, and for
other purposes.
The Department supports the intent of S. 3148 as consistent with
the General Management Plan (GMP) for the park but recommends deferring
action on the bill to give us the opportunity to explore ways to
maintain continuity and interagency coordination on issues related to
forest health and recreational opportunities.
S. 3148 would adjust the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument to include the addition of approximately 4,070 acres to
enhance the protection of the resources associated with the monument
and to increase public recreation opportunities. The lands that would
be added are currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of
the Siskiyou National Forest.
In 1907, the Secretary of the Interior withdrew approximately 2,560
acres for the purposes of establishing a national monument. The 1909
presidential proclamation establishing Oregon Caves National Monument
included only 480 acres. The monument was managed by the U.S. Forest
Service until its administration was transferred to the National Park
Service in 1933. The remaining withdrawal outside of the monument is
administered by the USFS as part of the Siskiyou National Forest. This
bill restores these lands to the monument boundary.
There would be no acquisition costs associated with the boundary
expansion and while a formal estimate has not yet been established, we
anticipate National Park Service's management, administrative,
interpretive, resource protection, and maintenance costs could be
approximately $300,000-$750,000 annually.
The explorer Joaquin Miller extolled ``The Wondrous marble halls of
Oregon!'' when speaking about the newly proclaimed Oregon Caves
National Monument in 1909. Oregon Caves is one of the few marble caves
in the country that is accessible to the public. This park, tucked up
in the winding roads of southern Oregon, is known for its remoteness,
the cave majesty, and the unusual biota. The park is located in the
Siskiyou Mountains and is part of a bioregion that has among the
nation's highest biodiversities of vascular plants and animals--more
than is found even in the tropics. The high rate of biodiversity is due
to the diverse temperatures, moisture regimes, climates, bedrock, and
productivity. The serpentine caves, cliffs, streams, springs and
granitic formations seem to be just the right size for diversity--not
so large that rare plants will continue to propagate, but not too small
that extinction is high or migrants cannot find it.
The stream flowing from the cave entrance is a tributary to a
watershed that empties into the Pacific Ocean. There are no human-made
obstructions that would prevent salmon migration, which makes this the
only cave in the National Park Service with an unobstructed link to the
ocean.
The caves are nationally significant and a favorite visit for
school kids and travelers alike. They remain alive and healthy because
of the watershed above them. The park recognized this when developing
the 1998 GMP and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement. The plan
recommended the inclusion of the watershed into the park to provide for
better cave protection and to protect the surface and subsurface
hydrology and the public water supply. Because of changes in the
recreational use of the lands since that time, additional discussions
with the USFS are warranted.
S. 3148 would designate approximately 7.6 miles of these waterways
as wild, scenic, or recreational under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
including the first subterranean designated waterway in the country,
the River Styx, which flows through the caves. This designation
provides no additional protections to land and water resources.
S. 3148 also provides authority for the Secretary to protect the
water quality--in the caves and for public consumption--and to
administer the lands in accordance with current laws and regulations.
The Secretary is also directed to carry out ecological forest
restoration activities that would establish a fire regime, manage
revegetation projects, and reduce the risk of losing key ecosystem
components. The land that this bill would transfer is categorized by
the U.S. Forest Service as condition class 3--high risk of fire. Most
of it is also designated as Late Successional Reserve under the
Northwest Forest Plan. We understand that the Forest Service is
currently working on a multi-year effort to reduce fuels under a
comprehensive forest plan which is intended to help restore the
appropriate role of fire in the ecosystem, which in turn would benefit
monument resources that are at risk from fire and fire suppression
damage.
Section 7 of S. 3148 provides for voluntary relinquishment of
grazing leases or permits by permittees to the Secretary of the
Interior for authorized grazing on BLM-managed lands within the Billy
Mountain Grazing Allotment. Under the bill, the Secretary is required
to accept the donation of those permits or leases from grazing.
The Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment is located 15 miles from the
OCNM boundary, and the proposed legislation does not identify a clear
link between this allotment and the monument. This grazing allotment
has been designated under the Medford Resource Management Plan, and
subsequent changes in designation are possible through the land use
planning process if land and resource data indicate that grazing should
no longer be supported on this allotment.
The BLM is opposes this provision. However, the BLM also recognizes
the value of working cooperatively and collaboratively with local
stakeholders to fulfill its multiple use mission on BLM lands.
While the transfer of these lands to the National Park Service
would increase interpretive and educational opportunities for visitors,
the Department finds it important to acknowledge and bring to the
committee's attention a current recreational activity that would be
affected by enactment of this legislation. Hunting is allowed by the
U.S. Forest Service on the lands in question. As currently drafted, the
legislation would extend the monument boundaries in a manner that
prohibits continuation of hunting on these lands. The Department
supports continuation of the diverse and traditional recreation
opportunities on these lands
To insure issues affecting the current forest health activities and
recreational opportunities on the lands are adequately considered, we
recommend the committee defer action on the legislation at this time.
We will continue our discussions with the U.S. Forest Service on these
matters.
Should the committee decide to move ahead on the legislation, the
Department recommends one technical amendment to the language involving
the transfer of the land from one Federal agency to another.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Suggested technical amendment to S. 3148
On page 5, line 14, after ``transfer'' insert ``administrative
jurisdiction of''
S. 3158
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
3158, to extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore
Advisory Commission.
The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 3158, which would
amend Section 8(a) of Public Law 87-126 to extend the life of the 10-
member Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission (commission) from
2008 until 2018. The Administration transmitted a similar proposal to
Congress on May 19, 2008.
The commission was authorized in 1961, as part of the national
seashore's enabling legislation and began operation in 1966. It has
been legislatively and administratively reauthorized several times. The
commission was last reauthorized for a ten-year period by Public Law
105-280 and is set to expire on September 26, 2008.
The commission is an exemplary example within the National Park
System of a partner in cooperative land stewardship. Its purposes are
to advise park management on questions relating to private land
ownership and occupancy inside the boundaries of the national seashore,
and on the management of recreational activities. Membership consists
of one representative from each of the six lower cape towns, two
representatives from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one
representative from Barnstable County, and one representative of the
Secretary of the Interior.
Cape Cod National Seashore, located in eastern Massachusetts, was
authorized by Public Law 87-126 in 1961, and established in 1966 with a
unique pattern of land ownership and management. The six lower cape
towns, from whose lands the Cape Cod National Seashore was carved,
retain ownership of numerous parcels within the park including ponds,
beaches, parking lots and roads. In addition, more than 600 parcels
inside the park are privately owned. Under a unique landowner
arrangement, sometimes referred to as the ``Cape Cod Formula,'' these
parcels are expected to remain in private hands. However, activities on
these lands can have profound effects on protected resources within the
national seashore, creating a need for constructive and creative
dialogue among landowners and park managers.
The Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission is a valuable
asset that enhances communication between park managers and local
communities and has established an excellent reputation as a
facilitator of vital public/private dialogue. Frequent use of
subcommittees dedicated to the exploration of specific questions allows
local opinion leaders to remain involved. At the same time, it permits
numerous parties to have direct access to park management through
dozens of hours of consultation that park staff would be otherwise
unable to support either individually or in public hearings.
The commission's state and local representatives participate
actively, and they strongly support its continuation. The cost of
administering the Commission is minimal, approximately $7,000 annually,
and is covered by the park's operating budget.
Mr. Chairman that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
S. 3247
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 3247, a bill to provide for the
designation of the River Raisin National Battlefield Park in the State
of Michigan.
At this time, the Department recommends deferring action on S.
3247. Our recommendation does not detract from the significance and
importance of this battlefield site and the historical events
associated with this major engagement of the War of 1812. We believe
that the special resource study and the national historic landmark
nomination currently underway should be completed so a determination
can be made if the site is nationally significant and is both suitable
and feasible to be designated as a unit of the National Park System.
S. 3247 directs the Secretary of the Interior to accept the
donation of real property from willing landowners in Monroe or Wayne
Counties, Michigan, relating to the Battles of the River Raisin and
their aftermath. If sufficient acreage to permit efficient
administration is donated, the Secretary shall designate the acquired
land as a unit of the National Park System. The new unit would be known
as the ``River Raisin National Battlefield Park.''
Public Law 109-429, signed by President Bush on December 20, 2006,
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource
study of sites relating to the Battles of the River Raisin on January
18 and 22, 1813 and their aftermath. The study would provide
alternatives for the appropriate way to preserve, to protect, and to
interpret these sites and resources. Those alternatives would include
recommendations on whether the area could be included as a new unit or
part of an existing unit of the National Park System, or if the Federal
government is the most appropriate entity to manage the site.
The National Park Service has begun work on the special resource
study and preliminary evaluation indicates that the site would qualify
as a national historic landmark. There is intact archaeological
evidence of the site; and archaeologists within the National Park
Service's Battlefield Protection Program say that if the archaeology is
preserved, the site has impressive integrity as a battlefield.
We believe the study process should be allowed to continue in
tandem with the national historic nomination. With public involvement,
these two efforts will provide needed information to determine the best
path for preservation and interpretation of the battlefield. We expect
both to be completed in 2-3 years from now.
The battles of the River Raisin were among the largest and most
tragic engagements of the War of 1812. They were fought where the River
Raisin enters Lake Erie at Frenchtown, or present day Monroe. Only 33
of the 934 American soldiers who fought in the battles escaped death or
capture. The massacre of wounded soldiers by Indians on January 23,
1813, shocked people throughout the Northwest Territories. This was
later known as the ``Massacre of the River Raisin.''
The River Raisin was left a desolate, nearly abandoned settlement
for eight months following the massacre. It was liberated on September
27, 1813, when Colonel Richard M. Johnson's Kentucky cavalry, led by
men from the River Raisin, rode into the settlement. Although the
British could not return, destruction was so severe that the River
Raisin settlement remained desolate and impoverished for five years
after the battle.
Until recently, the site of the main battlefield was occupied by an
abandoned paper mill and listed as a brownfield site. However, the city
of Monroe has received $1 million in grants and loans from the Clean
Michigan Initiative and the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality to remove the structures and mitigate any polluted soils. An
archaeologist monitored the removal and cleanup activities at the site,
which has recently been transferred to public ownership.
That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
S. 3226
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to present the views of the Department
of the Interior on S. 3226, a bill to rename the Abraham Lincoln
Birthplace National Historic Site in the State of Kentucky as the
``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park''.
The Department supports enactment of S. 3226, as we believe that
the term ``national historical park'' is a more appropriate designation
for the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace site than its current designation.
This bill is based on an Administration legislative proposal that was
transmitted to Congress on May 8, 2008.
Abraham Lincoln, one of our most revered Presidents, was born
February 12, 1809, in a one-room log cabin on the Sinking Spring Farm
near Hodgenville, Kentucky. This site, where the Lincoln family lived
until 1811, was established as the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National
Historic Site in 1916. This 116-acre site features a memorial building
that preserves an early 19th century Kentucky cabin, symbolic of the
one in which Lincoln was born.
In 1811, the family lost title to their Sinking Spring Farm and
moved ten miles away to 30 leased acres in the Knob Creek Valley. It
was here that young Abraham first attended the `Blab Schools,' so named
because the children recited their lessons aloud. It was also here that
a third child was born to the family, Thomas Lincoln, Jr., who survived
only a short time. The Lincolns lived at Knob Creek Farm until 1816,
when they moved to Indiana. Public Law 105-355, enacted in 1998,
authorized the acquisition of Knob Creek Farm, and the 228-acre parcel
of land was donated to the National Park Service in November 2001. This
acquisition added a second unit to the Historic Site.
Because the Historic Site now has two non-contiguous sites, its
2006 General Management Plan recommends seeking legislation to change
its name to ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park,''
which would make the name consistent with other parks that have
historic resources at multiple sites.
This legislation proposes a name change only. Costs associated with
the name would be minimal and would only involve changing the park name
on signs, letterhead, and brochures.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you or members of the committee may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Wenk.
Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, thank you for the
opportunity to present to the subcommittee the perspective of
the Department of Agriculture on S. 3148, the Oregon Caves
National Monument Boundary Modification. This bill would do
three things.
Transfer approximately 4,070 acres of land from the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest to the Oregon Caves National
Monument.
Designate six segments of river as part of the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Provide for the termination of grazing use on a Forest
Service managed grazing allotment adjacent to the monument.
The intent of these actions is to enhance protection of
resources associated with the Oregon Caves National Monument
and to increase public recreation opportunities in and around
the monument. We applaud these intentions and share these
goals. However we believe that this bill would not accomplish
these goals.
A similar expansion proposal has been a part of the Oregon
Caves National Monument General Management Plan since 1998.
Since that time, the Forest Service and Department of Interior
have not been jointly considering land status changes. The long
standing policy of USDA and DOI is to avoid unilateral
proposals that would change the status of lands.
Instead the approach has been to conduct a joint study
fully open to public participation. Moreover, long standing
direction from both Departments has been for mutual support and
cooperation in management of lands under each jurisdiction. I
want to assure you the Forest Service is fully committed to
cooperative and mutually supportive management.
Now I'd like to talk briefly about a commitment to
cooperation in resource protection on these lands. The land
managers of the Rouge River-Siskiyou National Forest currently
work very closely with managers of the Oregon Caves National
Monument on resource issues that cross boundaries. A primary
goal of both the Forest and the Monument is to maintain and
protect cave resources, hydrologic resources, watersheds and
view sheds.
Critical landscapes are currently managed by interagency
cooperation. These resources not only extend beyond the current
monument boundary, but also extent well beyond the proposed
expansion area. A great example of working to enhance resource
protection across boundaries is the Rogue River-Siskiyou's
commitment to improving forest health by addressing hazardous
fuels.
The majority of the proposed expansion area is designated
as late successional reserve, LSR for short, as defined under
the Northwest Forest Plan. The LSR managed by the Forest
Service within the expansion area is in fire condition Class
Three, high risk of damaging, perhaps catastrophic wildfire.
This danger is very real. This same ranger district experienced
a very large fire in 2002, the Biscuit Fire, that burned more
than a half million acres.
Currently the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is using
commercial harvesting in a coordinated multi-year effort to
reduce fuels around the monument boundary and across the larger
watershed and surrounding landscape. Some of the revenue from
commercial treatments will be used to reduce the cost of fuel
treatments on acres that can't be conducted commercially. Some
of this revenue will be returned to the State of Oregon to
support local schools and road maintenance.
The Forest Service is fully committed to providing a wide
range of public outdoor recreational opportunities on this
landscape. Visitors to National Forest lands in the area enjoy
horseback riding, camping, backpacking and hiking as well as
hunting and fishing. The Forest Service does and will work with
the National Park Service and the local community to make the
most of the recreational opportunities on and around the
monument.
However if the bill is enacted as written, hunting will be
prohibited from the proposed expansion area. The legislation
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to accept any donation of
a grazing permit by the permit holder for the Forest Service
grazing allotment. If this donation is receiving, grazing would
end on the entire allotment.
Regardless of what happens to this particular allotment.
The Forest Service believes that grazing is an environmentally
compatible use within this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou
National Forest. We also believe that livestock grazing on
public range lands continues to be an important and appropriate
use of these lands.
Ranching contributes to the economic vitality of rural
communities. It's tightly bound to the cultural identity of the
West and provides for open space values on the private lands
associated with public grazing. Wherever possible, we at the
Forest Service want to ensure policies help to keep working
ranches in operation and the land whole in the best tradition
of conservation.
In closing we believe that commitment on the part of the
Forest Service and National Park Service to actively cooperate
in management is the best and most effective means to enhance
resource protection and recreational opportunities across this
landscape. To that end, we request the committee defer action
on this proposal pending further coordination. Mr. Chairman,
this concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, on S. 3148
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S.3148 the Oregon Caves
National Monument Boundary Modification. The intent of the legislation
is to enhance protection of resources associated with the Monument and
to increase public recreation opportunities. To achieve these goals the
bill would transfer approximately 4,070 acres of land from the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest to the Oregon Caves National Monument;
it would designate six segments of rivers within the boundaries of the
proposed transfer as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
system; and it would provide for possible termination of grazing use on
a Forest Service-managed grazing allotment, a portion of which is
located within the proposed boundary of the Monument.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not believe that either
of the bill's primary purposes, enhanced protection of resources or
increased public recreation opportunities, would be effectively
achieved by its enactment. We believe that interagency coordination is
the best and most effective means not only to enhance resource
protection and recreational opportunities but also, and perhaps more
importantly in the long run, to increase the participation of local
communities, governments, and interest groups in Federal land and
resource planning activities. To that end, we request that the
committee defer action on this proposal pending further coordination
between the Forest Service and the National Park Service.
By way of background, the Oregon Caves National Monument is
comprised of an area of approximately 480 acres located in the Siskiyou
Mountains of southern Oregon. S. 3148 would expand the Monument
boundary, through a land transfer to the Secretary of the Interior, to
include approximately 4, 070 acres of land that are currently in the
Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
In order to better illustrate the Department's position, I would
like to take this opportunity to discuss in greater detail a number of
the bill's specific proposals as well as the current status of
cooperative and mutually supportive management between the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest and the Oregon Caves National Monument.
Expansion Proposal
Section 4 of the bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
transfer the proposed expansion area to the Secretary of the Interior,
and to adjust the boundary of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
to exclude the transferred land. The 1998 Oregon Caves National
Monument General Management Plan, developed through the public NEPA
process, recommended a similar boundary expansion. No coordinated study
or formal dialogue between the Departments (beyond that provided under
NEPA during development of the 1998 plan) has taken place in the
intervening period.
The longstanding policy of USDA and DOI is to avoid unilateral
proposals to change the status of lands. Instead if land change status
is to be considered, the Departments' approach has been to conduct
joint study, fully open to public participation. Moreover, longstanding
direction has been for mutual support and cooperation in management of
lands under each jurisdiction. The U.S. Forest Service is fully
committed to cooperative and mutually supportive management across our
respective jurisdictions.
Protection of Resources
The land managers of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and
the Oregon Caves National Monument currently work very closely together
on areas of mutual interest. The Forest Service and National Park
Service managers mutually support the following three specific goals:
1. Maintaining and protecting cave resources, hydrologic
resources, watersheds, and view sheds. Critical landscapes,
including cave resources and watersheds, are managed by
interagency collaboration. These resources, and the need to
manage them in a cooperative manner, not only extend beyond the
current Monument boundary but also extend well beyond the
proposed expansion area. Mere expansion of the Monument
boundary would do little to further enhance resource protection
of these landscapes and resources.
2. Improving forest health by addressing hazardous fuels. The
majority of the proposed expansion area is designated as
``Late-Successional Reserve'' (LSR) as defined under the
Northwest Forest Plan. These areas are intended to serve as
habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species. A
majority of the LSR landscape within this watershed, and the
larger surrounding landscape managed by the Forest Service, is
in fire condition class 3--high risk of damaging, perhaps
catastrophic, wildfire. Currently the Rogue River-Siskiyou
National Forest is using commercial harvest in a coordinated,
multi-year effort to reduce fuels, both around the immediate
vicinity of the Monument and across the larger watershed and
landscape. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest plans for
approximately 1550 acres of fuels treatment projects within the
proposed expansion area. Four hundred and forty acres will be
treated over the next several years. Of those acres,
approximately 100 acres will be treated by commercial harvest
with volume estimated at 560 thousand board feet and an
appraised value of approximately $168,000. The remainder will
be treated non-commercially. These treatments are designed and
implemented to help restore the historic role of fire in this
ecosystem and will help ensure that the forest attributes
intended for the LSR, including bigger, older, more fire
resistant trees, remain intact. To that end, we fully endorse
the intent of section 6 of the proposed legislation to have
forest restoration activities continue on the proposed
expansion area. The hazardous fuel challenge in this region -
and the danger of catastrophic fire-crosses all jurisdictions
and is one we all must work together to address.
3. Minimizing any potential impacts from harvest, grazing,
mining, and road construction. The Forest Service is fully
committed to its multiple-use mission on National Forest System
lands. Sustainable timber harvesting, grazing, and special
forest products harvesting, as well as providing for a
diversity of recreation opportunities, including hunting and
fishing, help support the local economy. Returned receipts to
states from commercial activities on National Forest lands play
an important role supporting local public infrastructure,
including schools and roads.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 500 directs 25% of receipts from a National Forest to
be returned to the state where the National Forest is located; the
state then distributes to the county where the National Forest is
situated for public schools and roads as the state may prescribe.
On the National Forest lands that surround the Monument, timber
harvesting, grazing and special forest product harvesting (i.e. bear
grass, firewood, mushrooms, etc.) are allowed only if they meet
resource objectives, as described above. Road management is limited to
maintenance and reconstruction activities; no new roads are planned to
be built within the area. Moreover, interagency collaboration provides
additional oversight of these types of multiple-use activities.
Expanding and improving tourism and recreational opportunities
Current recreation on the portion of the National Forest proposed
to be transferred includes horseback riding, hunting and fishing,
gathering, camping, backpacking, and hiking. Interagency coordination
maintains access to a full range of recreational opportunities which
enhances the experience of both Monument and National Forest visitors.
Executive Order 13443, issued in August 2007, directs the managers of
national parks, forests, and other public lands, consistent with agency
missions, to ``facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting
opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.''
If the bill is enacted, we understand from the National Park Service
that hunting would be prohibited from the 4070 acre proposed expansion
area. The Forest Service is fully committed to working with the
National Park Service and the local community to provide for and to
enhance a full spectrum of public outdoor recreational opportunities.
Relinquishment and Retirement of Grazing Permits
Section 7 of the proposed legislation would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to accept any ``donation'' of a grazing permit by the
permit holder for grazing on the Forest Service managed Big Grayback
grazing allotment, and if such a donation is received, ensure an end to
grazing on the entire allotment. Under this legislation, only a small
portion of the Big Grayback allotment would become part of the
Monument, and it is not clear how permanently ending grazing on a large
area of land outside the Monument will further the legislation's
purposes of enhancing resource protection and recreation opportunities
on the Monument.
The Forest Service believes that grazing is an environmentally
compatible use within this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest. Livestock grazing on public rangelands has been and continues
to be an important and appropriate use of our public lands and is
important to the economic vitality and cultural identity of many
communities. We recognize that most ranchers are good stewards of the
land, and that they are essential contributors to retaining rangelands
as open space and working lands across the Nation. The United States is
losing important working rangelands to development all across the
Nation. The loss of open space results in fragmentation of the
rangelands into smaller, more isolated patches. The loss of open space
affects our air, water, and vegetation, and degrades wildlife habitat;
increasingly these former rangelands are developed into part of the
wildland/urban interface. Development of open space is driven by a
multitude of social and economic factors, some of which are beyond the
mission or ability of the Forest Service to address. However, for our
part, we want to ensure that Forest Service policies help to keep
working ranches in operation and the land whole, in the best tradition
of conservation.
The permit holder's family has historically held permits on this
allotment since 1937. The current permit was issued 2002 and will
expire in 2012. A revised management plan for the allotment was issued
in February, 2008 following an Environmental Assessment that was
completed in October, 2007. The revised plan has not yet been issued,
pending an appeal resolution under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Absent a voluntary waiver of the permit by the permit holder, the
Forest Service generally only retires grazing permits through the
public land use planning processes. The current permit holder may waive
the permit at any time. If the permittee waives the permit back, the
Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest currently has the discretion to
utilize the land within the parameters of the Forest's Land Management
Plan. Options for use of the land include issuing the permit to a new
holder if the base acres requirement is met, holding the allotment
vacant, or retiring the allotment. We note that if the legislation is
enacted and the permit is not waived, the permit on the National Forest
portion of the allotment, beyond the proposed expansion area, would
continue as a valid use. Further, the Forest Service would not be
responsible for enforcement of livestock exclusion, including fence
construction and range improvements, on the portion of the allotment in
the proposed expansion area, since that land would be transferred to
the Secretary of the Interior.
We have other concerns with section 7. For example, section 7 does
not indicate how the allotment would be managed should the permittee
opt not to relinquish the permit, or in what order the transfer of the
land and the waiver of the permit would occur. In addition, while
section 7(a) would require a permanent end to grazing on the allotment
if the permit is ``donated,'' section 7(b) indicates that a portion of
a grazing permit could be donated. We also have concerns with some of
the terminology in section 7. For instance, one example is the use of
the term ``donation'', a concept that is not applicable to Forest
Service grazing permits. The Forest Service uses the term ``waiver'' to
describe a permittee's voluntary relinquishment of a grazing permit.
Consequently, the Forest Service opposes this provision. However,
the Forest Service also recognizes the value of working cooperatively
and collaboratively with local stakeholders to fulfill its multiple use
mission on Forest Service lands.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Section 5 of the proposed legislation provides for the addition of
six river segments to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
(NWSRS). The Siskiyou National Forest analyzed all tributaries to the
Illinois River on National Forest System lands for eligibility for
inclusion in the NWSRS as part of a 1989 settlement agreement to an
appeal of the Land and Resource Management Plan. None of the four
rivers included partly or entirely in the current Monument expansion
proposal were found to meet the criteria for eligibility at that time.
The Forest Service would suggest that, at minimum, the segments within
the proposed expansion area be re-evaluated for their eligibility for
the NWSRS.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this legislation. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Holtrop.
I would like to begin with a question for Mr. Wenk
regarding S. 3247, the River Raisin National Battlefield bill.
I understand that the Park Service believes that the site and
its history are significant. However, and you did state in your
testimony, you would like the opportunity to complete the
suitability study to determine the best way to preserve and
interpret the battle and battlefield and you did mention in
your testimony that you think it will take about two to 3 years
to complete the study.
My only question is, ``Why is it going to take that long?''
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, the typical study for a new area
study or special resource study of the National Park Service
typically takes 2 to 3 years and costs approximately $300,000
to do that. We did launch the study in April of this year. The
first public meetings are scheduled for October of this year.
There is reason to believe based on preliminary work that's
been done at the National Historic Landmark Study with the city
of Monroe, that it is nationally significant or has national
significance. The question of suitability and feasibility can
only be answered by going through the complete study. That's
just, sir, the time that it takes to get a study done.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for the explanation. I would like
to ask you a question regarding S. 3113, a bill regarding off-
road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. If
this bill is enacted into a law and the court decree is
overturned what do you see as the most significant, on the
ground impact?
Mr. Wenk. I think there's two ways to look at the impact,
sir. One of the ways is to look at the effects on the natural
resources, the endangered species. We know that under the
consent decree that we had an increase in the number of nesting
pairs of endangered species, the piping plover and of the
fledglings from those nestings there.
We know we've had an increase in other species that are
protected either by the Federal Government or under state
government. We also know that there's been an increase in the
amount of nests of the turtles. So one side is that we, if we
were not to continue with the consent decree, we may see, some
of those gains not being able to be sustained.
On the other hand if it was rolled back there would be more
beach space or beach access that would be available. The
setbacks that are required under the consent decree are greater
in distance from nesting pairs from fledglings than they would
be under the consent decree. So there is a difference in the
amount of beach access at particular times of year.
I might say that currently 3 of the 6 fishing areas are at
least partially open. We expect that all six will be open in
September, and that the consent decree will not affect the fall
and winter fishing seasons at Cape Hatteras.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Wenk, I would like to ask you
about S. 3148, Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary
Expansion. I understand that it is the Administration's
position generally, to oppose the transfer of lands from the
Forest Service to the National Park Service. However, can you
tell me from the Park Service's perspective whether or not the
land issued here would be suitable for addition to the
monument?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, in 1998 and 1999 there was a
general management plan done with considerable public
involvement and what that general management plan looked at was
how the ecology of the cave and their environments, including
the Lake Creek and Cave Creek watersheds, could be offered
additional protections. In addition to the monument's water
supply, protection of the source of that supply which is on
these proposed additions, would offer additional protection to
the viewsheds from the monument's developed areas and the
monument's trails would be further enhanced.
So, we believe there are further protections that are
included within there. Therefore they are suitable.
Senator Akaka. Let me now ask for questions from my
colleague, Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also ask
unanimous consent to send additional questions to our witnesses
because I will focus on Hatteras, but I do have questions on
other things.
Senator Akaka. No objection. They will be included.
Senator Burr. Dan and Joel, thank you for being here. Dan,
I'm going to focus on you and let Joel off the hook. As it
relates to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, during the time
in which the Interim Management Plan was followed, did the
National Park Service comply with the terms of the formal
biological opinion?
Mr. Wenk. We did comply with the reasonable and prudent
measures that were within the terms of the conditions of that
original 2006 biological opinion. However, we did fail to meet
some of the performance measures that were contained in there.
Therefore, we had to re-engage in negotiations with the Fish
and Wildlife Service on those terms and measures.
Senator Burr. During the court approved agreement time that
it's been in place, which is just under 3 months if I remember.
Has there been any increase in beach traffic anywhere else
because of the limitations that have been put on Hatteras?
Mr. Wenk. Are you saying any other place within the
National Park System or within different segments of the beach?
I want to make sure I'm answering your question.
Senator Burr. Given that there have been limitations placed
that didn't exist before on beach traffic, it would be all from
the seashore area.
Mr. Wenk. I'm not aware that there's any increased traffic
off of the beach area. I do know that on 1 day over the
Memorial Day weekend, we had a situation with beach traffic in
terms of concentration of the ORV traffic that we had to
actually sort of, if you will, allow beach traffic, monitor or
control the traffic through an area because of the size of the
open space. But that only happened on 1 day.
I can tell you, sir that the amount of area closed in
general, has been very close to the same under the Interim
strategy or under the consent decree. The issue obviously
serves where it's closed in terms of the total miles on the
beach.
Senator Burr. So for 2008 has the visitation of the
Hatteras National Seashore--is it up or is it down?
Mr. Wenk. It's down about 15 percent.
Senator Burr. What's the average for the Park Service in
total?
Mr. Wenk. In total, I don't know. I did look at some
numbers in preparation for this.
Senator Burr. It's down 1.2 percent. I'll save you looking
it up.
Mr. Wenk. I do know Cape Lookout is down 18 percent. I know
that Cape Cod is 2 percent. Regarding seashores, Padre Island
is down. As are other islands, Assateague, Cumberland and Fire
Island.
Senator Burr. Do the others fall within the framework of
what the Park Service totally is down. But my question gets to
the heart of the fact that there's something that's
unpredictable about outer seashore. It's not just affected the
visitation of Hatteras.
It's affected the visitation of Lookout and of other areas.
Senator Dole put this incredibly well that part of the balance
we have to look at from a standpoint of our side is what's the
economic impact. Could this decision be economically
devastating to those in the area? A 14.5 percent reduction in
visitation, a larger loss of economic business at Lookout, down
the Island is a significant impact when you're talking about
the period that truly is the money making time of this area of
North Carolina.
You gave a statistic. I don't question the statistic.
That's the number of fledglings off the nest. I interpreted you
to insinuate that this was the direct result of this new
strategy, of this rule in place.
Now this rule has been in place for 3 months. Can you
honestly make that assessment based on a 3-month period?
Mr. Wenk. Sir, the only thing I can tell you is that the
difference between 2007 and 2008. I cannot tell you if that's a
trend that can be sustained or will be sustained. I just can
tell you in terms of the observation. This was what was
observed in 2007. This is what's observed in 2008.
Senator Burr. By the same?
Mr. Wenk. It's a fact.
Senator Burr. By the same token you can't tell me if the
double digit decline in visitation is an aberration or it's
just a continuation.
Mr. Wenk. That is correct.
Senator Burr. Ok. I thank you. Thank the chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. Now I'd
like to call on Senator Craig for any comments or questions he
may have.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
in light of what Senator Burr's concerns are, gentlemen, I'm
always frustrated when we see the restriction of OHV use on
land intended for recreational use. We try to designate for
purposes of resource value and resource balance.
At the same time we certainly designate properties that are
for certain types of use. Then to step in and start restricting
that use additionally, to me, denies Americans a right to enjoy
their natural heritage in many ways. Certainly OHVs allow for a
greater number of our people to enjoy our Nation and what it
has to offer.
The economic consequences of these kinds of activities are
real. We all know there are types of resources that properly
managed can utilize those. There are others properly managed
shouldn't have them on it.
I think I understand that. I would hope that that would be
true in the situation that Senator Burr is speaking to. In that
sense I think S. 3113 which is the legislation you're dealing
with, Richard, as it relates to the interim plan for National
Parks and in this case beach use.
Also, Mr. Chairman, there's another piece of legislation S.
3148 that deals with boundaries on the Oregon Caves National
Monument to include about 4,000 acres of forested lands. This
would increase the size of that monument by ten fold from its
current 480 acres. In these areas, I know that my colleagues
from Oregon have some frustration about it.
But grazing plays a typical role in ranching. Ranchers
cannot afford, I think, to compete with environmental
organizations that have large accounts for funding their
purposes. I found that time and time again where we, in
creating public policy really have to become the reasonable
moderator. That's something that I think is tremendously
important.
In the West that I represent environment values are awfully
important along with grazing, all kinds of recreational
activities. I'm always cautious when I see overly restrictive
designations in areas that probably, I would find or most would
find it hard to justify, when in fact the resource itself has
been designated or the one that we're focused on designating.
Also, one of the things that I think we're finding
increasingly important out West as it relates to access and all
of that is in a balance so that we can get in to fight fires
and deal with the increased intensity of these fires in a way
that allows our management the flexibility of doing that.
Anyway those are some of my frustrations I think on these
two pieces of legislation that are before the committee today
along with several others. I'll approach those with due
caution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. I want
to thank our two witnesses on this panel very much for being
here today. We will keep the record open for any further
statements or questions that we may have, that we'll submit to
you.
Thank you very much.
Senator Craig. I would also ask unanimous consent that my
full statement be included in the record.
Senator Akaka. Without objection it will be included in the
record, Senator Craig.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho
Restricting OHV use on land intended for recreation use is
restricting the right that every American has to enjoy our natural
heritage. OHV's allow for a greater number of people to enjoy what our
nation has to offer.
We must also consider the economic consequences-when the major
attraction of a small town is a beach, it doesn't help to shut it down.
While I understand the importance of keeping America's public lands
peaceful and pristine.
I don't think that OHV use would detract from this, in fact, it
could increase visitation as it diversifies the activities one can
partake in at various sites.
It seems to me that were the residents of an area given the option
of protecting a threatened species and recreating vs. protecting a
species or recreating, they would go with the first option.
Opinions are divided over the importance of the some oceanic
creature's habitat and recreation on the beaches.
In some cases, the voices of the locals are being suppressed in
favor of the more outspoken, though not necessarily correct, and
structured organizations with more resources at their disposal.
Many times these organizations are regionally or nationally based
entities that do not have a stake in the local community.
It is not only the locals who enjoy recreating on the federal
lands. Visitors from all over the United States face disappointment as
more and more of their land is designated as critical habitat.
How can we determine at this point whether or not a plan that has
been implemented for less than a year (from June 13, 2007-April 2008)
has resulted in success?
Environmentalists claim that the decline in shorebird population is
due to the OHV usage which is unsubstantiated due to the lack of
information.
The ``decline'' could be a result of a variety of factors. To
consider the results inconclusive after one season is inappropriate.
STATEMENT ON S. 3148
Grazing plays a pivotal role in ranching. Ranchers cannot afford to
compete with environmental organizations that have large amounts of
funding at their disposal. It's important to ensure that buyouts are
fair and not placing the ranchers at a disadvantage.
Ranchers should not be forced to give up private land needed for
grazing in order to expand federal land holdings.
Another concern has been over thinning and restoration in the
forests around Oregon Caves, which would be transferred from the Forest
Service to the Park Service.
Should the forest be neglected, Oregon and neighboring states could
face an increase of intense wildfires as a result.
The transfer of power is also a cause for concern. Undoubtedly the
Forest Service has a different focus than the Park Service, which could
lead to more a focus on the Oregon Caves while the forests become
dilapidated.
A third concern has been over hunting on Park Service lands, which
are generally off limits to hunting. Expanding the boundary will push
hunters back, and they are generally opposed to locking up more land.
Hunting has the potential to fuel tourism. Restricting hunting
rights even further is unfair to residents who rely on the patronage
hunters can bring.
Considering the land was originally managed by the Forest Service,
hunters have a reasonable expectation to not have their lands curtailed
by a related agency.
Senator Akaka. I would like to call up the second panel.
The Honorable Warren Judge, Chairman of the Dare County
Board of Commissioners; Derb Carter, Director of the Carolina
Office for the Southern Environmental Law Center; Coline
Jenkins, President of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust; and,
William Braunlich, President of the Monroe County Historical
Society.
I want to thank all of you for being here today to testify
before the committee. I want to tell you that we appreciate
your coming. Some of you have traveled from out of town. We
appreciate your time and effort.
Your testimonies will certainly help the committee. I just
want you to know that following your testimony you will be
subject to questions, and also to ask you to please limit your
remarks to no more than 5 minutes. Your complete statements
will be included in the record along with any other materials
you may submit.
Commissioner Judge, will you please proceed?
STATEMENT OF WARREN JUDGE, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
DARE COUNTY, NC
Mr. Judge. Good afternoon and thank you, Senator Akaka,
Senator Burr and Senator Craig. I'm Warren Judge, Chairman of
the Dare County Board of Commissioners. On behalf of the 33,000
people who call Dare County their home and six million people
who visit Dare County and the Outer Banks every year, it is my
honor to appear before you to seek your support for S. 3113 to
return the management of the Cape Hatteras National
Recreational Area to the Park Superintendent.
I've attached supporting materials by outside counsel
Holland and Knight.
The National Park Service created the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore in 1937. In 1952, in an effort to alleviate
the concerns of the people of Hatteras Island after taking
miles of privately owned lands, Conrad Wirth, the Director of
the Park Service sent an open letter to the people of the Outer
Banks assuring them that there will always be access to the
beach for all people whether they are local residents or
visitors. His letter went on to acknowledge that the people who
had lived in the area for generations would be responsible for
caring for the tourists that would arrive to the newly created
seashore and that these communities would enjoy the prosperity
created by the Park.
Until April of this year, Director Wirth's vision for the
Park has been carried out. For decades the National Park
Service has balanced the rights of all Americans to access the
seashore with the need to protect the Park's resources. In
April of this year, special interest environmental groups put
an end to the National Park Service's successful and accepted
management principles.
As a result of a lawsuit and under the threat of an
injunction closing even larger portions of the seashore, a
consent order was issued by U.S. Federal District Court Judge,
resulting in the closure of significant portions of the
seashore to human access including the most popular swimming
areas in the seashore and the traditional and world renown
fishing areas. Special interest groups were relentless in their
pressure on the park and the management in their effort to
close the seashore. These special interest groups have no
practical sense and advocate the removal of people from the
Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area.
Contrary to Director Wirth's acknowledgement that and I
quote, ``Man is an integral part of nature and a very important
consideration of designing solutions in dealing with nature.''
Senators, this an issue of access for all people to their
favorite place in the recreational area, the backside beaches
and tidal pools at Oregon Inlet or for Moms and Dads a great
place to take their young children to experience the oceanside
out of the wave zone. Cape Point is world renown for fishing.
There is no better place in the world to drum fish.
Cape Point is where the Gulf Stream and the Labrador
Current collide. This phenomenon brings surfers from all over
the world. If you surf Hawaii and if surf Australia, you will
surf Cape Point.
This is an issue of how heritage and our culture. It is
about our people. Generations of Hatterasmen who are
descendants of shipwreck victims. It is about the Migdett's,
Burrus', Couch's, Dillon's, all who for generations have owned
and operated family businesses on Hatteras Island.
There are hundreds of stories that I could share with you
today about people whose businesses, as a result of this court
order, have declined in some cases by as much as 50 percent
since April, even as we are on the prime part of our season.
Senators, there are no factories in Dare County. There are no
corporate headquarters. We are hundreds of small business men
and women.
We go to work everyday to provide for ourselves and to
serve as hosts to millions of vacationers as they come to Dare
County and the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area. Many
of them eke out a living and are content to do that for the
opportunity to live and to enjoy the outdoors that Hatteras
Island provides. Government should not take that away.
Government should do all that it can to preserve this way of
life.
These same men and women that I have spoken about are the
very ones who care for the environment and the beauty of the
Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area. You will find them
cleaning the beaches or guiding and protecting turtle
hatchings. They'll cherish the Park's natural resources.
These are the same resources that attracted them to Dare
County and attract the visitors upon whom all of our
livelihoods depend. They, too want to protect these resources,
but do not believe it should be done without thought of human
impact. The Interim Management Plan that was adopted in 2007
worked. The birds and turtles were protected and the people had
access to the recreational area.
The people of Hatteras Island understood and accepted the
plan. It was developed by the National Park Service in
conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It gave
Park Managers the ability to manage.
That ended when those unwilling to balance interests, who
are single minded in their pursuits filed legal action to
obtain their goals without thought to the impact on small
communities and to the working people who live in those
communities. It should now be restored while we work together
to come up with a permanent plan that accomplishes these goals.
The people of Hatteras Island and Dare County are counting on
you to help them to keep the promises made by those before you.
Please help us preserve our culture, our history, our way
of life. Please support S. 3113. Thank you for this opportunity
to appear before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Judge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Warren Judge, Chairman, Board of Commissioners,
Dare County, NC
Thank you Senator Akaka (Mr. Chairman), I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today. It is an honor and a privilege to
represent the 33,000 people who call Dare County, North Carolina their
home and the 6 million people who visit Dare County and the Outer Banks
every year.
I am here today on behalf of those people to ask for your support
of S3113 to return the management of the Cape Hatteras National
Recreational Area to the Park Superintendent. I have attached
supporting material by outside counsel, Holland and Knight.
The National Park Service created the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore in 1937. In 1952, in an effort to alleviate the concerns of
the people of Hatteras Island after taking miles of privately owned
lands, Conrad Wirth, the Director of the Park Service, sent an open
letter to the people of the Outer Banks assuring them that ``there will
always be access to the beach for all people, whether they are local
residents or visitors.'' His letter went on to acknowledge that the
people who had lived in the area for generations would be responsible
for caring for the tourists that would arrive to the newly created
Seashore and that these communities would enjoy the prosperity created
by the Park. Until April of this year, Director Wirth's vision for the
Park has been carried out. For decades the National Park Service has
balanced the rights of all Americans to access the Seashore with the
need to protect the Park's resources.
In April of this year, environmental groups put an end to the
National Park Service's successful and accepted management practices.
As a result of a lawsuit and under the threat of an injunction closing
even larger portions of the Seashore, a consent order was issued by a
U.S. Federal District Court judge resulting in the closure of
significant portions of the Seashore to human access, including the
most popular swimming areas in the Seashore and the traditional and
world renowned fishing areas. Special interests groups, in particular
National Audubon and the Defenders of Wildlife, were relentless in
their pressure on the Park and the management in their efforts to close
the Seashore. These special interest groups have no practical sense and
advocate the removal of people from the Cape Hatteras National
Recreational Area contrary to Director Wirth's acknowledgment that
``man is an integral part of nature and a very important consideration
of designing solutions in dealing with nature''.
Senators, this is an issue of access for all people to their
favorite place in the Recreational Area. Have you ever been to Oregon
Inlet? It is a first class location to surf fish, and has some of the
best family swimming beaches you will ever find. The back side beaches
and tidal pools offer moms and dads a great place to take their small
children to experience the ocean outside of the wave zone. Cape Point
is world renowned for fishermen; there is no better place in the word
to drum fish. Cape Point is where the Gulf Stream and the Labrador
Current collide. This phenomenon brings Surfers from all over the
world. If you surf Hawaii and Australia, you will surf Cape Point.
South Beach, too, is a world class beach and known the world over. You
do not visit Hatteras Island without spending a day on South Beach.
This is an issue of our heritage and our culture. It is about our
people; generations of Hatterassmen who are descendents of shipwrecked
victims. It is about two brothers, Stocky and Anderson Midgett, who
operated a bus from Oregon Inlet to Hatteras Inlet delivering supplies
and people up and down the Island--the Beach was the highway. This is
about John Couch, a second generation family business owner, who has
provided services for visitors. It is about Allen Burrus a five
generation family business owner. Allen's family has owned and operated
a Grocery Store in the same location since 1866. Allen's grandfathers
watched as the Federal Government took their land for the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area, and promised them that they would
always be able to hunt, fish, and have access to the ocean. It is about
Carol Garris, a wife and mother who with her husband had the American
Dream, to own their own business. They worked hard and were successful.
When the Consent Degree closed many miles of beach, their business was
devastated. Not only is their business in jeopardy, but they are facing
personal financial ruin. This is about Carol Dillon, a 79 year old
woman, a native of Buxton, who has operated the Outer Banks Motel just
north of Cape Point for 50 years. Carol was at the Public Meeting in
the early 1950's when Director Conrad Wirth promised the people of
Hatteras Island and Dare County that taking their land and making it a
National Recreational Area was in their best interests. The land would
be preserved forever for all to enjoy.
There are hundreds more of these faces that I can share with you
today. These are the people whose businesses, as a result of a Court's
order, have declined by as much as 50% since April, even as we are in
the prime part of our season. Senators, there are no factories in Dare
County; there are no Corporate Headquarters. However, we are as
American as you can be. We are hundreds of small businessmen and women;
from charter boat captains to commercial fisherman, from fishing tackle
stores to gift shops; from motels and cottages to rental homes; from
variety stores to eco sports outlets. We go to work everyday to provide
for ourselves and to serve as hosts to millions of excited vacationing
visitors as they come to Dare County and the Cape Hatteras National
Recreational Area for the times of their lives. Many eke out a living
and are content to do that for the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors
that Hatteras Island provides. Government should not take that away.
Government should do all that it can to preserve this way of life.
These same men and women that I have spoken about are the very ones
who care for the environment and beauty of the Cape Hatteras National
Recreation Area. You will find them cleaning the beaches as they
organize beach sweeps to remove litter and trash that is harmful to
birds; sitting up all night waiting for a nest of turtle eggs to hatch
and then guide them safely to the ocean protecting them from their
natural predators on land. These same people have more knowledge of all
the birds and nests on Cape Hatteras than any special interest group
spokesman that will come before you. The Interim Management plan that
was adopted in 2007 worked, the birds and turtles were protected and
the people had access to the Recreational Area. The people of Hatteras
Island understood and accepted the plan. It gave Park Managers the
ability to manage. That ended when those, who are unwilling to balance
interests, who are single minded in their pursuits, filed legal action
to obtain their goals without thought to the impact to small
communities and to the working people who live in those communities.
In a minute, you will hear from the attorney who represented those
environmental groups in their efforts to close the seashore's beaches.
He will no doubt tell you about his interpretation of the law, and
about the correctness of his client's actions, about the failures of
the National Park Service, and even provide you with statistics that he
says support his view. Though other lawyers and biologists disagree
with his opinions and statistics, he will not tell you that, nor will
he tell you about the impact of his and his client's actions on the
people of my community. While he may not care about the people of
Hatteras Island and Dare County, these same people do care about the
resources he says he is trying to protect. These are the same resources
that attracted them to Dare County and attract the visitors upon whom
all of our livelihoods depend. We too want to protect these resources,
but do not believe it should be done without thought of the human
impact. The Interim Management Plan provided the balance that we seek.
It was developed by the National Park Service in conjunction with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It protected the resources of the Park
and the interests of the community. It gave the National Park Service
the flexibility to continue doing that. It should be restored while we
all work together to come up with a permanent plan that accomplishes
these same goals.
The people of Hatteras Island and Dare County are counting on you
to help them, to keep the promises made by those before you. Please
help us preserve our culture, our history, our way of life. Please
support S3113.
[Resolution, background paper, and attachment 1 have been retained
in subcommittee files.]
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Honorable Judge. Now we
will hear from Derb Carter. Will you please proceed?
STATEMENT OF DERB S. CARTER, JR., ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, CHAPEL HILL, NC
Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, I'm Derb Carter
with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. Thank you for the invitation today to present
our views on S. 3113. We represented the National Audubon
Society and Defenders of Wildlife in the lawsuit that led to
the consent decree that's now the subject of this legislation.
For the reasons that I will summarize, that are discussed
in more fully in our written testimony, we ask the subcommittee
to oppose S. 3113.
The consent decree requires the Park Service to implement
specific management measures on Cape Hatteras National Seashore
to protect wildlife until a final ORV management plan and
special regulation is put in place. The consent decree was a
product of negotiations between all parties to the lawsuit,
Dare County, Hyde County, the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation
Alliance, the Coalition of ORV groups, the National Park
Service and of course my clients, Defenders of Wildlife and the
National Audubon Society. All parties signed a consent decree
and recommended to the court that it be entered, which the
court did.
The Senate should honor this agreement and settlement
negotiated in good faith by the parties to the lawsuit and
approved by the court. As our beaches and shorelines have been
developed, sea turtles and several species of water birds and
shore birds have little place left to breed and nest except
areas we have set aside for them, such as Cape Hatteras
National Seashore. Congress has wisely chosen to preserve
national seashores as a part of our National Park System to
leave them unimpaired for future generations to enjoy.
The management measures to protect wildlife on the seashore
required by the consent decree are the moderate protection
recommendations of Department of Interior scientists that were
requested by the National Park Service. We believe this peer
reviewed scientific recommendations are the best scientific
information available on protection of these nesting birds and
sea turtles. The preliminary results from implementation of
these management measures under the consent decree are very
encouraging as previously discussed by the Park Service.
The season is not yet over, and 99 sea turtles have pulled
up on the beaches at night to nest. Only 82 nested on the
seashore during the entire year last year.
Federally threatened piping plover breeding pairs and
fledged chicks nearly doubled. Colonial waterbird numbers are
up. One species black skimmer, which disappeared from the
seashore last year returned to nest this year. In short, the
management numbers required by the consent decree are working
to protect and restore the wildlife on Cape Hatteras National
Seashore.
While the temporary closures of areas for breeding birds
have restricted access to some parts of the seashore beach. The
vast majority has remained open to beach goers. Much has
remained open to ORV users.
I was on Cape Hatteras point on Saturday. Currently
approximately nine miles, of the 67 miles of seashore beach is
closed for resource protection. Much of that closure will begin
to come down and by the fall all of it will come down and the
beaches will be fully open. Over 53 miles of the seashore beach
are open and accessible to beach goers. Over 27 miles are
available for ORV use.
On July 4th the National Park Service reported 2,557
vehicles on Cape Hatteras National Seashore beaches. To our
knowledge no ORV has been denied access to the beach since the
consent decree was entered. There's a lot of beach available
for all users. Even sharing some of that beach with the
wildlife that has little other place to go.
It also appears that many users are enjoying the beaches of
Dare County. The Dare County Visitor Bureau reports that
visitation measured by occupancy at hotels and rental homes was
up 6.3 percent in May, the first month of the consent decree
compared to May 2007 despite the sagging economy and high gas
prices. As Senator Burr mentioned the drop in visitation to the
seashore of 14 percent, we're aware of that figure. But it's
also interesting to note that the drop in visitation to the
seashore was 20.2 percent prior to the consent decree and has
decreased to 10 percent since the consent decree was entered.
Let me conclude on a personal note. I've visited and driven
on the beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore for 30 years
to enjoy some of the best birding and fishing on the East Coast
as many others have. I've observed the dramatic increase in
vehicles and general use of that beach. I've also observed the
dramatic declines in wildlife that has occurred during that
period of time.
I agree entirely with Senator Burr that Cape Hatteras is a
very unique and special place and a national treasure for all
of our citizens. I believe the management measures in the
consent decree provide much needed and appropriate protections
to the seashore's wildlife. While allowing access for families,
fishermen, water sport enthusiasts and ORV users and should
remain in place until final ORV and management regulation is
put in place.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and present
these comments and look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Derb S. Carter, Jr., Attorney, Southern
Environmental Law Center, Chapel Hill, NC, on S. 3113
My name is Derb S. Carter, Jr. I am an attorney with the Southern
Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. We represented
the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife in the
litigation that resulted in the consent decree that is the subject of
Senate Bill 3113. This testimony is submitted on behalf of the National
Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, and the
Southern Environmental Law Center. Because the consent decree provides
overdue protection of the natural resources of Cape Hatteras National
Seashore and allows for appropriately managed off-road vehicle
(``ORV'') use, we oppose Senate Bill 3113, legislation that would
mandate a return to management practices that were resulting in
declines and disappearance of wildlife from the Seashore.
SUMMARY
On April 30, 2008, Dare County, Hyde County, an alliance of off-
road vehicle advocacy groups, the National Park Service, the National
Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife entered a consent decree in
federal court requiring the National Park Service to implement certain
wildlife protection measures on Cape Hatteras National Seashore
(``Seashore'') until it fulfills a more than thirty-year old obligation
under federal law to adopt a final ORV management regulation. Senate
Bill 3113, if enacted, would nullify this consent decree, which was
agreed to by all parties and approved by the court, and would instead
reinstate previous management guidelines that resulted in declines and
disappearance of wildlife on the Seashore. We urge this committee and
the Senate to oppose any effort to enact this legislation.
The consent decree implements the recommendations of Department of
the Interior scientists to protect wildlife species on Cape Hatteras
National Seashore until a final ORV plan and regulation is adopted. The
species management measures include temporary closures to prevent
disturbance of birds during the critical nesting season and
restrictions on night driving to protect nesting sea turtles. These
measures are necessary to halt the precipitous declines of species on
the Seashore. Preliminary monitoring results from the National Park
Service are encouraging, and all species appear to be benefiting from
the management measures required by the consent decree. In addition,
the Department of the Interior and National Park Service are required
to protect and preserve the Seashore and its wildlife. This consent
decree is intended to bring the agency into compliance with its legal
mandate regarding wildlife while it completes its work to comply with
mandates to manage ORV use.
The species management requirements of the consent decree have not
unreasonably restricted use of the Seashore. Residents and visitors are
familiar with seasonal ORV prohibitions for resource protection and in
front of the seven villages where ORV use is prohibited during the
summer for families to enjoy sunbathing, swimming, and other
nonvehicular activities.
Cape Hatteras National Seashore has approximately 67 miles of
beaches. As of July 24, of the 67 miles of beaches on the Seashore, the
area temporarily closed to ORV and pedestrian use for natural resource
protection was 9.1 miles. In contrast, over 53 miles of beach are open
and available for families to enjoy on foot at the Seashore. Similarly,
26.8 miles of the Seashore are available for ORV use. ORV users have
taken advantage of these areas; on July 4, 2008, 2,557 vehicles used
Seashore beaches.
The consent decree will remain in effect until the National Park
Service adopts a final management plan and rule through a negotiated
rulemaking process. It requires that the National Park Service publish
the final ORV management regulation by April 2011. The consent decree
makes clear that the final plan will replace the management
requirements in the consent decree and the requirements in the consent
decree are not binding on the negotiated rulemaking or the negotiated
rulemaking committee.
BACKGROUND
In 1972, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11644 requiring
federal land management agencies to publish regulations for all federal
lands designating ORV areas and trails and ensuring ORV use does not
harm natural resources.\1\ National Park Service regulations prohibit
ORV use in national parks and seashores unless and until parkspecific
ORV regulations are published.\2\ While other national seashores have
complied with the requirement to issue plans and regulations for ORV
use,\3\ Cape Hatteras has not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exec. Order No. 11644, 37 Fed. Reg. 2,877 (Feb. 8, 1972).
\2\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 4.10(a).
\3\ Cape Cod National Seashore, Assateague Island National
Seashore, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Fire Island National
Seashore, and Padre Island National Seashore have regulations managing
ORV use. See 36 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 7.65, 7.67, 7.20, 7.12, and 7.75.
Cumberland Island National Seashore, Canaveral National Seashore, and
Point Reyes National Seashore all prohibit off-road vehicles entirely.
See http://www.nps.gov/cuis/planyourvisit/hours.htm; http://
www.nps.gov/cana/faqs.htm; http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/
lawsandpolicies--compendium2005.pdf. Of the ten national seashores,
only Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Cape Lookout National Seashore
have failed to enact regulations managing ORV use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, the National Park Service issued an ``interim plan'' for
species management on the Seashore which in most respects simply
reduced previous management of species to writing. In the decade prior
to the ``interim plan,'' protected colonially nesting waterbirds on
Seashore beaches declined 86% and threatened piping plovers declined
from 14 pairs in 1996 to 6 pairs in 2007.\4\ The first year of the
``interim plan,'' 2007, was one of the worst bird breeding seasons on
record and two colonial waterbird species failed to successfully nest
on the Seashore beaches at all.\5\ Unsuccessful nesting attempts by
threatened and endangered sea turtles exceeded successful nesting.\6\
As a result, the Park Service exceeded the amount of incidental taking
authorized under the Endangered Species Act for threatened piping
plovers and threatened or endangered sea turtles on the Seashore.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Declaration of Walker Golder 5, filed in Defenders of
Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, et al, Feb. 20, 2008
(summarizing North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission data on Cape
Hatteras National Seashore bird populations).
\5\ Id.
\6\ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE: 2007
ANNUAL TURTLE REPORT 5 (2007) (reporting 82 nests and 115 false crawls
during the 2007 season).
\7\ See Letter from Pete Benjamin, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, to
Mike Murray, National Park Service (April 24, 2007) (amending the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service's biological opinion evaluating the interim
plan and prescribing performance measures, including that the sea
turtle nest to false crawl ratio be less than 1:1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2007, the National Audubon Society and Defenders of
Wildlife filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service, challenging
the ``interim plan'' for species management on the Seashore.\8\ The
organizations were concerned about the continuing decline of species on
the Seashore and the fact the ``interim plan'' failed to implement the
sciencebased management recommendations from Department of the Interior
scientists. Dare and Hyde Counties and an alliance of ORV advocacy
groups intervened in the lawsuit on the basis that they represented
``local governments, ORV enthusiasts, recreational anglers, and ORV
service providers . . . the parties that will be most immediately and
directly affected by the outcome of this case.''\9\ On April 30, 2008,
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
approved a consent decree, agreed to and recommended to the court by
all parties including the intervenors; it addressed driving on the
beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the protection of
wildlife there until a final ORV management plan is adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Together, Defenders of Wildlife, The National Audubon Society,
and SELC have over two million members and supporters total, with more
than 60,000 members and supporters in North Carolina.
\9\ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Dare County, et al. Motion to
Intervene in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, et
al. 1, Nov. 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE CONSENT DECREE
The consent decree requires the National Park Service to publish a
plan and regulations designating areas or trails for ORV driving on the
Seashore, as required by federal law. The regulations must be published
no later than April 1, 2011. In addition, to address declining wildlife
populations, the consent decree requires that the National Park Service
implement measures to protect breeding birds and sea turtles from
disturbance until a final ORV management plan is adopted.
The parties to the consent decree are Dare County, Hyde County,
Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, the National Park Service,
the Department of the Interior, the National Audubon Society, and
Defenders of Wildlife. The Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance
is an umbrella organization that includes the Outer Banks Preservation
Association, the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club, and the North Carolina
Beach Buggy Association.\10\ All parties in the lawsuit supported the
consent decree and recommended that the court approve it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Association website, http://
capehatterasapa.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That unanimous support for the consent decree was the result of
extensive negotiations among all parties and detailed consideration of
all affected interests. When asked by the court whether the counties
and ORV coalition supported the consent decree, their attorney
responded, ``There have been intense negotiations between the parties
here. Our clients have participated in those negotiations in good
faith. A settlement has been worked out that is, I think, in nobody's
mind a perfect solution. We believe that we participated in the process
in good faith and we join in asking the court to enter the consent
decree.''\11\ The commissioners of both counties held public meetings
and voted to approve the settlement, and the ORV coalition similarly
met and authorized their attorney to sign the consent decree.
Similarly, the Park Service stated, ``The agreement reached between the
NPS and the other parties to the lawsuit is a creative solution that
addressed a tough issue. This well thought out plan will serve as an
example of how we fulfill our responsibilities and meet the needs of
all parties involved.''\12\ National Audubon Society and Defenders of
Wildlife also recommended approval of the consent decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Consent Decree Hr'g Tr. 45:9-14, April 30, 2008. Despite this
representation in federal court that they negotiated and supported the
consent decree, CHAPA and its member organizations have sought to
override the agreement they crafted and joined through this proposed
legislation. CHAPA has listed instructions and posted a sample letter
to encourage its members to support this legislation. The Outer Banks
Preservation Association, the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association,
and the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club have similarly advocated for their
members to support this legislation overturning the agreement they
entered into.
\12\ Press Release, National Park Service, Agreement Reached to
Preserve Wildlife and Recreation Opportunities on Cape Hatteras
National Seashore (May 1, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT DOES THE CONSENT DECREE REQUIRE?
The consent decree requires that the National Park Service provide
places for federally and state protected birds and sea turtles to nest
on the Seashore during the breeding seasons--generally April to July or
August for birds and May to November for sea turtles. ORV use is
restricted at historic bird breeding sites in the spring to provide
disturbance-free areas that allow the birds to set up territories or
colonies and to nest. The pre-nesting areas still allow ORV use of the
inlets and Cape Hatteras Point. During the months of the year before
the establishment of pre-nesting closures on March 15 and after the
completion of the bird and sea turtle breeding, resource management
closures do not limit ORV use of the ocean beaches of the Seashore.
If birds do begin to nest in the pre-nesting closures or other
areas outside these prenesting closures, buffers are established around
the nesting areas to prevent disturbance. The species-specific
disturbance buffers are based on the ``moderate protection
recommendations'' from peer-reviewed reports prepared by scientists in
the United States Geological Survey (a part of the Department of the
Interior) at the request of the National Park Service and on the
recovery plan for the Atlantic Coast population of the threatened
piping plover developed and issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.\13\ Those reports were based on a thorough review of the best-
available science. Depending on where the nesting occurs, ORV corridors
and/or pedestrian access may or may not be affected by the buffers. The
scientifically determined disturbance buffers may limit ORV and/or
pedestrian use of an area until breeding is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See e.g., UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MANAGEMENT,
MONITORING, AND PROTECTION PROTOCOLS FOR COLONIALLY NESTING WATERBIRDS
AT CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA 13
(2005)(recommending 100m to 200m buffers for different colonial
waterbirds); UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, PIPING PLOVER
(CHARADRIUS MELODUS) ATLANTIC COAST POPULATION REVISED RECOVERY PLAN
192-194 (1996)(recommending buffer distances for pedestrians and ORVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea turtles, which primarily nest and hatch during the night, are
protected under the consent decree by closure of the beaches to ORV use
from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. May 1 through September 15 and a requirement for
permits, driver education, and light restrictions from September 16
through November 15. These restrictions are also based on the best-
available science, including the United States Geological Survey
recommendations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
PROTOCOLS FOR NESTING SEA TURTLES AT CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE,
NORTH CAROLINA (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTS OF THE CONSENT DECREE ON VISITORS TO THE SEASHORE
Under the consent decree, only those areas used by breeding birds
and areas immediately surrounding sea turtle nests are closed to ORV
use during daylight hours. Breeding closures are removed when birds
complete nesting and chicks fledge. Turtle nest closures are removed
after the nest has hatched. As the breeding seasons for birds and
turtles progresses and then winds down, the total area opened or closed
to ORV use changes in response to breeding and nesting activity. This
approach ensures that scientifically supported protections are put in
place when needed to protect wildlife. In addition, this approach
requires extensive monitoring and management of resources in order to
make beaches available to vehicles quickly after turtles hatch or
chicks fledge. An alternative approach, also recommended by Department
of Interior scientists, is to close to ORV access key nesting areas
around the inlets and Cape Point year-round.
To date, resource closures under the consent decree have only
affected small stretches of the Seashore's beaches. Cape Hatteras
National Seashore has approximately 67 miles of beaches. On July 24,
2008, 9.1 miles were temporarily closed for natural resource
protection; 53.3 miles of Seashore were open to pedestrians; and 26.8
miles were open to ORV traffic. Cape Point, though temporarily closed
during to protect piping plovers, was opened to pedestrian access on
July 22, 2008.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BEACH ACCESS REPORT
FOR JULY 24 2008 (2008) (``July 24 Beach Access Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The size of some closures is, in part, a result of vandalism of
buffer fencing. The National Park Service has documented four separate
incidents of vandalism of resource closures. Two of those acts of
vandalism occurred on Hatteras Island\16\ and two occurred on Bodie
Island.\17\ In each instance, the first act of vandalism triggered a 50
meter buffer expansion and the second act of vandalism resulted in
expansion a 100 meter buffer expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Press Release, Outer Banks Group, Second Act of Vandalism of
Shorebird Closure Fencing (May 19, 2008), at http://www.nps.gov/caha/
parknews/second-act-of-vandalism-of-shorebird-closure-fencing.htm.
\17\ Press Release, Outer Banks Group, A Deliberate Violation of
Resource Protection Area for Least Tern Colony with Chicks and Nests
(July 28, 2008), http://www.nps.gov/caha/parknews/a-deliberate-
violationof-resource-protection-area-for-least-tern-colony-with-chicks-
and-nests.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the two holiday weekends that have taken place under the
consent decree appear to have been successful for tourism in the area.
According to the local online newspaper, the Island Free Press, the
usually busy Memorial Day weekend ``was, well, like any other holiday
weekend on Hatteras and Ocracoke'' despite the ``unprecedented beach
closures.''\18\ This trend continued through the Fourth of July
weekend; the Park Service reported 2,557 vehicles were on Seashore
beaches on July 4th.\19\ The Island Free Press stated, ``There are
beaches open to off-road vehicles on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands--
despite the impression that some folks have that all beaches are closed
down. Even through the July 4 holiday weekend, there was room on those
open beaches for anyone who wanted to drive to the ocean's edge.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Irene Nolan, Dodging the bullet on Memorial Day Weekend,
ISLAND FREE PRESS, May 19, 2008, http://www.islandfreepress.org/
2008Archives/05.19.2008-DispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html.
\19\ Irene Nolan, New dispatches from the beachfront: Access
update, getting smart about beach driving, manners and laws, and July 4
report, ISLAND FREE PRESS, http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/
07.11.2008-ShootingTheBreezeNewDispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html. This
level of ORV activity indicates that there has been little to no effect
on overall ORV use of the beach, with the busiest holiday weekends in
previous years reportedly approaching only 2,200 vehicles. Notice of
Intent (NOI) To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for an Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (ORV Management Plan) for Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, NC, 71 Fed. Reg. 71552 (Dec. 11, 2006).
\20\ Irene Nolan, New dispatches from the beachfront: Access
update, getting smart about beach driving, manners and laws, and July 4
report, ISLAND FREE PRESS, http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/
07.11.2008-ShootingTheBreezeNewDispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTS OF THE CONSENT DECREE ON WILDLIFE ON THE SEASHORE
It is too early in the first breeding season under the consent
decree to have a complete data set, but preliminary results from the
National Park Service's weekly Resource Management Reports are
encouraging. By the last week in July, piping plovers had increased
from 6 breeding pairs in 2007 to 11 pairs in 2008, an 83% increase for
this threatened species.\21\ Fledged piping plover chicks nearly
doubled from 4 to 7 during the same period, the highest number of
fledged piping plover chicks on the Seashore since 1998.\22\ American
oystercatchers, which declined 42% between 1999 and 2007, were down one
pair this year to 21 breeding pairs on Seashore beaches, but at least
20 additional oystercatchers were present, some of which appeared to be
paired.\23\ Oystercatchers have equaled last year's total of 10 fledged
chicks, with up to 7 more possible, which raises the hope that the
oystercatcher breeding population will continue to recover in coming
years.\24\ The overall number of nesting colonial waterbirds has
increased, and black skimmers are nesting again on Seashore beaches,
after failing to nest at all last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR JULY 24, 2008 1 (2008) (``July 24
Resource Report'').
\22\ Declaration of Walker Golder Attachment 7, filed in Defenders
of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, et al, Feb. 20, 2008.
\23\ OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR JUNE 18, 2008 2 (2008).
\24\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the number of successful sea turtle nesting attempts
has increased to 92 so far in 2008, up from 82 all of last year. As of
July 24, there have been 92 successfully laid sea turtle nests and only
82 unsuccessful nesting attempts,\25\ reversing last season's ratio
under the ``interim plan'' when the number of unsuccessful nests, 115,
far exceeded the number of successful nests, 82.\26\ Based on these
preliminary indicators, all species appear to be benefiting from the
management measures required by the consent decree. However, due to the
steep population declines over the last decade, it will take more than
one or two years of proper management for beach nesting birds to
recover fully at the Seashore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id. at 3.
\26\ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE: 2007
ANNUAL TURTLE REPORT 5 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE CONSENT DECREE
As with environmental effects, it is too early to assess the
economic effects, if any, of the restrictions on beach driving.
Approximately 2.5 million visitors come to the Seashore each year. A
2008 government-contracted study concluded that 2.7 to 4% of these
visitors are ORV users.\27\ That study also estimated that 9% of the
visitors to the Seashore would return more often if driving were
restricted on the beaches.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INC., ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL
HABITAT DESIGNATION OF THE WINTERING PIPING PLOVER 2-14 (2008).
\28\ Id. 2-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dare County Visitors Bureau reports that visitation during May
2008 (the first month of the consent decree) as measured by occupancy
of motels, cottages, and other accommodations, was 6.31% higher than
May 2007, a greater increase in visitation than the average increases
for May over the past five years.\29\ This increase in visitation
occurred despite a sagging economy and record high gas prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ OUTER BANKS VISITORS BUREAU, GROSS OCCUPANCY SUMMARY 1994-
2007, www.outerbanks.org/pdf/Gross_Occupancy_Summary_receipts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service reports a drop in visitation this year to
Cape Hatteras National Seashore of 14.5% through June 2008 as compared
to the same period last year.\30\ This reflects an overall drop in
visitation to the entire national park system this year. However, the
drop in visitation to Cape Hatteras National Seashore this year prior
to implementation of the consent decree (January-April) was 20.2%
compared to a 10% drop after implementation of the consent decree.
Visitation at nearby Cape Lookout National Seashore, unaffected by the
consent decree, has dropped 35% through June 2008 compared to the same
period last year.\31\ Accordingly, the consent decree appears to have
had little to no negative effects on tourism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
park service negotiated rulemaking to adopt a final orv management plan
In January 2008, the Department of the Interior established an
advisory committee representing diverse interests and charged with
recommending a proposed final ORV management plan to the National Park
Service. The consent decree does not restrict or undermine this
process. The lawsuit that led to the consent decree challenged the
ongoing management of wildlife on the Seashore under the interim plan
and sought to halt the decline and disappearance of birds on the
Seashore during the time it will take for a final ORV plan--the focus
of the negotiated rulemaking--to be adopted. According to the Park
Service, it will take three years to go through rulemaking to adopt a
final ORV plan. At that time, as the consent decree states, the final
plan will replace the management requirements in the consent decree. By
its terms, the consent decree is not, nor could it be, binding on the
negotiated ruling.
CAPE HATTERAS IS A NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNIT
Cape Hatteras was established as the nation's first national
seashore to be managed by the National Park Service in 1937. The
enabling legislation creating the Seashore states
Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be
especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly
swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational
activities of a similar nature, which shall be developed for
such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently
reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the
project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be
undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of
the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now
prevailing in the area.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 16 U.S.C Sec. 459a-2.
Neither ``off-road vehicles'' nor driving on the Seashore beaches
are mentioned in any legislation creating the Seashore. In 1940,
Congress passed a bill that authorized hunting on the Seashore and
added the words ``Recreational Area'' to the name of the Seashore, but
did not change the basic mandates for the park and did not address the
use of ORVs.
The obligation of the Park Service to protect the natural resources
of the Seashore is unaffected by its designation as a ``National
Seashore'' instead of a ``National Park,'' because under the General
Authorities Act, Congress mandated all units of Park System be managed
under a unified system.\33\ The Seashore is managed by the National
Park Service under the congressional mandates of the National Park
Service Organic Act. In that Act, Congress declared that the primary
purpose of the Seashore is ``to conserve the scenery and the natural
and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''\34\
Moreover, National Park Service management policies governing the
Seashore recognize that ``when there is a conflict between conserving
resources and values and providing enjoyment of them, conservation is
predominant.''\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1, 2-4.
\34\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1.
\35\ National Park Service Management Policies 1.4.3 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection of the natural resources on national parks and seashores
to leave them unimpaired for future generations is, and should be,
paramount. The consent decree strikes the appropriate balance in
addressing conservation and recreation interests and provides much
needed protection to wildlife on The Seashore until a final ORV
management plan is adopted.
CONCLUSION
In sum, all parties and interests agreed in open court to the terms
of the consent decree augmenting the terms of the ``interim plan''
until such time as the National Park Service adopts a final ORV
management plan, and a federal court approved it. As the statistics
above show, the slight increase in the portions of the beach that have
been closed to ORV use under the consent decree has had only a
negligible impact, if any, on tourism and on the numbers of ORVs using
the Seashore. At the same time, however, the closures have had a
strikingly positive effect on the success of the endangered and
threatened species that live and breed at Cape Hatteras. We ask,
therefore, that this Committee oppose Senate Bill 3113 and leave the
consent decree in place.
[Graphics have been retained in subcommittee files.]
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. Now
we will hear from Coline Jenkins. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF COLINE JENKINS, PRESIDENT, ELIZABETH CADY STANTON
TRUST, GREENWICH, CT
Ms. Jenkins. Thank you Chairman Akaka. It is an extreme
pleasure for me to be here. I'm very appreciative that you
brought this legislation forward to this hearing. I also thank
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Clinton, for her leadership in
bringing this bill forward.
I am Coline Jenkins Sahlin. I'm a resident of Old
Greenwich, Connecticut and President of the Elizabeth Cady
Stanton Trust. I'm also the great, great granddaughter of
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of America's foremost
leaders in the women's suffrage movement. In 1848, she publicly
called for the women's right to vote. Later in 1878, she
appeared before the Senate Committee on Privileges and
Elections.
In 1892, she appeared before the House Committee Judiciary
Committee. I do have a graphic from that period showing her
appearing, which I'd like to share with you. At both hearings
she supported the passage of the women's suffrage and the
expansion of women's rights.
Today I come here before you in support of Senate bill
1816, the creation of a women's rights history trail, its
inclusion on the National Registry and its support by State
Historic Preservation Offices across the whole Nation. Back in
the 1800s, when Elizabeth appeared before the Senate and the
House, the committee members had a different set of fish to fry
than what we discuss today. They were struggling with the
issues of Nation building.
Were we, as Nation, going to extend rights to 51 percent of
the population, women, or were women particularly those
married, to lack fundamental legal rights as dictated by the
traditions of English common law. Since women were American
citizens, Stanton argued. They also should enjoy all rights
including the ultimate right of citizenship, the right to vote.
Stanton would never live to see these rights enshrined in
the Constitution. She died in 1902. As we all know the 19th
amendment was passed in 1920.
My mother, Rhoda Barney Jenkins was born 1 month before the
passage of the 19th amendment. She died last summer on the eve
of August 25, the day that Congress granted women the vote 87
years earlier. My mother's life is a measurement of women's
rights progress.
This bill is crucial and necessary in honoring our Nation's
history. We cannot understand the present without understanding
our past. The struggle to gain full citizenship for women is
called America's Bloodless Revolution. It is a war unlike most
American wars.
The Women's Rights Bloodless Revolution lasted 72 years
rather than the typical 4 years. The first cannon shot of this
revolution was fired with words in 1848 at the first Women's
Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. The first shot was
the public reading of the Women's Declaration of Sentiments. It
was modeled after the Declaration of Independence written by
Thomas Jefferson, 72 years earlier.
At this first Women's Rights Convention, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton rose to the dias and spoke these words. ``We hold these
truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created
equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.''
More than 125 years later, I went to my great grandmother's
house, sorry, my great, great grandmother's house in Seneca
Falls in the early 1970s. By then her house had been acquired
by a private foundation. While in Seneca Falls I decided to go
to the site of the first Women's Rights Convention at the
Wesleyan Chapel.
When I arrived it was obvious, the Chapel had been
converted into a laundromat. One would never know that this
building was the birthplace of a blueprint that led to one of
America's greatest bestowal of democratic freedoms in its
history. A blueprint that enlarged the freedoms of the 51
percent of the population by touching on voting rights, access
to higher education and professions as well as other freedoms.
In my mind I heard the voice of my great, great grandmother
saying, ``it's a wonder the republic has done as well as it has
when it has used only half of its resources.'' When I inserted
my quarters into the washing machine, I said to myself this is
amazing. I, an American citizen, am washing my dirty clothes in
one of America's historically, most significant sites.
It was the equivalent of putting a laundromat inside
Independence Hall at Philadelphia. I knew then it was a matter
of time before America would wake up and honor this site and
other sites tied to women's rights.
During the past 40 years since my visit to Seneca Falls, I
have witnessed the creation of many milestones. Including the
establishment of the Women's Rights National Historical Park,
which is one of seven parks of the 391 units in the Park System
that is specifically dedicated to commemorating some aspect of
women's history. I have also, in Seneca Falls, witnessed the
establishment of the Women's Hall of Fame, the McClintock House
where the Declaration of Sentiments was written and the Hunt
House where the tea party was at which that revolution was
fomented.
Both of these sites are in the National Park. This is the
epicenter of the expansion of American democracy. What's
important is the Park Service did not spend a dime on acquiring
any of these sites. Furthermore the bill before you has no
authority for land acquisitions, so it's an inexpensive good
buy.
The crowning moment came for me in 1998, which was the
150th anniversary of the first Women's Rights Convention. Who
would imagine this celebration that the celebration of legal
rights would attract 20,000 people in 1 day to a National Park?
This is a personal pleasure that such a dry subject as legal
rights became a rock star.
Now there exists a marvelous synergy between these National
Park buildings and adjacent sites, the Harriet Tubman home, the
Susan B. Anthony house. These are owned by non-profits, but
they're open to the public. So today with the passage of this
bill we link these sites with other sites across the Nation
where women made history and we will ensure that women's rights
history will not evaporate or become a site of a laundromat.
The significance of women's history is captured by Edith
Mayo, Curator Emeritus of the Smithsonian, the political
history division of the Museum of American History. Curator
Emeritus Mayo said, ``Women need to see themselves as actors
and participants in American history. There is a very crucial
connection between being visible with your history and
empowering yourself in the present and in the future.'' The
same can be said for all Americans as our society is based on
``E pluribus Unum.''
Specifically the bill before you, 1816, builds on this
belief. I support three principle aspects. One is the auto
route that goes across upper New York State that tells the
history of the epicenter of the Women's Rights Movement. This
would include signage, maps, educational books, etc.
The second part I support is surveying, evaluating and
nominating women's rights history properties to the National
Registry of Historic Places. This would give a nationwide,
overarching project called the National Women's Rights History
Project Registry.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Jenkins, would you please summarize your
statement?
Ms. Jenkins. I'd be delighted to do that. In conclusion
this is one of the greatest honors of my life to address you,
the representatives of we, the people. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenkins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Coline Jenkins, President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Trust, Greenwich, CT
I am Coline Jenkins, a resident of Old Greenwich, Connecticut, and
the president of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust. I am the great-great
granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of America's foremost leaders of the
women's suffrage movement. In 1848, she publicly called for women's
right to vote. Later, in 1878, she appeared before the Senate Committee
on Privileges and Elections. In 1892, she appeared before the House
Judiciary Committee. At both hearings, she supported the passage of
women's suffrage and the expansion of women's rights.
Today, in this hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on National
Parks, I come before you in support of Senate Bill 1816--the creation
of a women's rights history trail, its inclusion in the National
Registry, and its support by state historic preservation offices across
the country. Back in the 1800's, when Elizabeth appeared before both
the Senate and the House, the committee members had bigger fish to fry.
They were struggling with the issues of nation building. Were we, as a
nation, going to extend rights to 51% of the population--women--or were
women, particularly those who married, to lack fundamental legal
rights, as dictated by the traditions of English common law?
Since women were American citizens, Stanton argued, they also
should enjoy the ultimate right of citizenship--the right to vote!
Stanton would never live to see that right enshrined in the
Constitution with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. My mother,
Rhoda Barney Jenkins, was born one month before its passage; she died
last summer on the eve of August 25, the day Congress granted women the
vote 87 years earlier. My mother's life is a measurement of women's
rights progress.
This bill, too, is a crucial and necessary step in honoring our
national history. We cannot understand the present without
understanding our past. The struggle to gain full citizenship for women
is called ``America's Greatest Bloodless Revolution.'' It was a war
unlike most American wars. The women's rights bloodless revolution
lasted 72 years. The first cannon shot of this revolution was fired
with words in 1848 at the First Women's Rights Convention in Seneca
Falls, New York. The first shot was the public reading of the women's
Declaration of Sentiments. It was modeled on the Declaration of
Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, 72 years earlier in 1776. At
this first Women's Rights Convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton rose to
the dais to speak these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men AND
WOMEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
More than 125 years later, I visited my great-great grandmother's
home in Seneca Falls, in the early 1970s. By then her house had been
secured by a private foundation. While in Seneca Falls, I decided to
also visit the site of the first Women's Rights Convention, held at the
Wesleyan Chapel. Upon arrival, it was obvious the chapel had been
converted into a laundromat. From outward appearances, one would never
know this building was the birthplace of a blueprint that led to the
greatest bestowal of democratic freedoms in the history of the United
States. A blueprint that enlarged the freedoms of 51% of the population
by touching on voting rights, access to higher education and
professions, as well as other freedoms. In my mind, I heard the voice
of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, saying, ``It is wonderful the republic has
done as well as it has when it has used only half of its resources.''
When I inserted my quarters into a washing machine, I said to
myself, this is amazing that I, a citizen of the United States, am
washing my dirty clothes in one of America's most historically
significant sites. I realized the neglect of the building was the
equivalent of putting a laundromat inside Independence Hall at
Philadelphia. I knew then, it was a matter of time before America woke
up to honor this site and other important sites. As my clothes were
spinning, my consciousness was rising.
During the past forty years, since my first visit to Seneca Falls,
I have witnessed the creation of many milestones there, including the
establishment of Women's Rights National Historical Park, one of seven
parks, out of 391 units in the National Park system, that is
specifically dedicated to commemorating some aspect of women's history.
I have witnesses the establishment of The National Women's Hall of
Fame. I have witnessed the purchase of the M'Clintock House, where the
Declaration of Sentiments was written; and the Hunt House, where
revolution was fomented with talk and a teaspoon. Both houses are parts
of Women's Rights Historical National Park. The list of milestones in
Seneca Falls goes on and on in the campaign to breathe life back into
the people and places that made this an epicenter of the expansion of
American democracy.
It's important to note that the park service did not spend a dime
on acquisition of these sites. Furthermore, the bill before you has no
authority for land acquisition.
A crowning moment for me came in 1998 at the 150th Anniversary of
the first women's rights convention. Who would imagine that the
celebration of legal rights would attract 20,000 people in just one day
to this national park? What a pleasure to see such a dry subject--legal
rights--become a rock star.
Now there exists a marvelous synergy between these national park
buildings and neighboring sites, such as the Harriet Tubman Home and
the Susan B. Anthony House, both owned by non-profits and open to the
public. Today, with the passage of this Bill, we link these sites to
others across the nation, where women made history. We will ensure that
women's rights history will not evaporate.
The significance of women's history is captured by Edith Mayo,
Curator Emeritus of the Smithsonian--The Political History Division of
the Museum of American History. Curator Mayo said, ``Women need to see
themselves as actors and participants in American history. ...There is
a very crucial connection between being visible with your history in
the past and empowering yourself in the present and the future.'' The
same can be said for all American citizens, as our society is based on
``E pluribus unum.''
The specifics of Senate Bill 1816 build on this belief.
This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
commemorative trail in connection with the existing Women's Rights
National Historical Park. It would create an auto route across upper
New York State that would link other properties historically and
thematically associated with the struggle for women's rights.
Practically speaking, the auto route will include uniform signage,
maps, educational handbooks, interpretive guides and websites. This
legislation does not authorize any land acquisition, but it links
sites, both privately and publicly owned. The legislation would assure
that all sites on the tour have verifiable connections to the expansion
of women's rights.
The second piece of this legislation recognizes that, while upper
New York State is the site of the first phase of the struggle, the
national as a whole granted women their rights. Thus the second piece
of the legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
make annual grants for up to five years to assist State historic
preservation offices in surveying, evaluating and nominating women's
rights history properties to the National Register of Historic Places.
This Registry would thus become the foundation of an overarching
project called ``The National Women's Rights History Project National
Registry.''
As an aside, many states have already amassed information, on a
parallel course with this proposed legislation, such as Arizona, which
has an excellent web site called The Arizona Women's Heritage Trail;
www.womensheritagetrail.org. Other states have been active in
documenting women's history. This relatively inexpensive legislation
will help fuel tourism in your states of Hawaii, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Tennessee, Louisiana, Wyoming, Colorado, Alabama, Arkansas,
Oregon, Vermont and Montana--all states packed with women's rights
history.
Regarding Bill S-1816, the Secretary of the Interior will authorize
the update of the existing website, ``Places Where Women Made
History.'' The website currently provides travel itineraries based on
geographic areas and themes related to women's rights. Finally,
authorization would be given to make matching grants and give technical
assistance to governmental and non-governmental entities to develop
interpretive and educational programs.
In closing, testifying before Congress is one of the greatest
privileges of my life. Women did not start out as equal citizens, but
our system of government enabled them to achieve that status with its
guaranteed rights of free speech, assembly, and the right to petition
government. It enabled my great-great grandmother to come before
Congress; it has given me the honor of coming before you, the
representatives of ``We, the People.'' Yet I leave with a warning. The
19th Amendment, which was called the ``Susan B. Anthony Amendment,''
was introduced 41 years to Congress before it was passed. That is a
very long time to wait.
I encourage you to pass Bill S-1816 before the close of the 110th
Congress that I understand adjourns in late September. If not, I will
return, for as Susan B. Anthony said, ``Failure is impossible!''
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. Now
we'll hear from Mr. Braunlich. Please proceed with your
statement.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. BRAUNLICH, PRESIDENT, MONROE COUNTY
HISTORICAL SOCIETY, MONROE, MI
Mr. Braunlich. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka. My name is
William H. Braunlich and I'm privileged to serve as President
of the Monroe County Historical Society. I thank you for this
opportunity to speak on behalf of the River Raisin Battlefield
legislation and the citizens of Monroe County, Michigan.
This past Saturday on July 26, 2008, the community of
Monroe, Michigan was extremely honored to have the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne as our featured
speaker at Monroe County Community College. The occasion was
very special, the ceremonial signing and transfer of Plum Creek
Bay from the County of Monroe to the citizens of the United
States of America. This 126 acre parcel of property was owned
by the County of Monroe and the County Board of Commissioners
realized that this unique wildlife habitat belongs rightfully
to all of the citizens of this country and should be included
in the magnificent and growing Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge.
Through the inspirational leadership of our Congressman
John D. Dingell, that property transfer was made and represents
the genius of natural resource conservation through voluntary
contribution. Today as President of the Monroe County
Historical Society and as an elected trustee of Monroe County
Community College, I'm proud to speak on behalf of another
tremendous community collaborative and proposed contribution.
Namely Monroe's effort to properly share our resources and
transfer to the citizens of the United States of America our
most precious, historical asset, the sacred soil of the battles
and the massacre of the River Raisin.
I'm joined today by Mark Worrel, honorable Mayor of the
city of Monroe and other leadership representatives from our
community Jean Guyor, Gerald Welch and Michael Meyer. Each of
them joins me on behalf of their stakeholder organizations in
urging you to consider this legislation favorably.
What the community of Monroe recognizes and has recognized
for a very long time is that our 1812 battlefield and its
compelling story does not belong just to our city or our county
or even the great State of Michigan. It belongs properly to the
people of the United States of America.
So, Chairman Akaka, we got it for you. The Battlefield. The
River Raisin Battlefield is yours for the asking.
We stand ready to host another signature event in Monroe.
Transfer the deeds without charge to the citizens of this
country and celebrate its incorporation into the constellation
of National Parks in the United States.
As Senator Levin has indicated, throughout the sweep of
American history there have been the battle cries that
represent galvanic moments in the national psyche, moments when
horrific events have eliminated doubts about the stakes and the
need for military action. Remember the Maine. Remember the
Alamo. Remember Pearl Harbor.
Remember the Raisin, although now but a faint historical
whisper in the minds of many was a rousing call to action in
January of 1813. Americans were stunned and enraged to learn
that a force of almost 1,000 Americans was brutally decimated
and that only 33 escaped death or capture.
U.S. newspapers called the incident, the River Raisin
Massacre. Thousands of young men in the Northwest Territory
responded to the call to take back Detroit, to take back
Mackinac, to take back Michigan and the Great Lakes from
British control. That call was heeded with steadfast American
determination and grit and yes, lives.
America succeeded decisively in the Battle of Lake Erie and
in the Battle of the Thames and brought the war to a close in
the Great Lakes Theater. Remember the Raisin was the battle cry
which inspired Americans to action and it should be recognized,
remembered and commemorated with our other powerful national
battle cries.
We're very proud to inform you, Chairman Akaka, that
through a powerful funding partnership, over $5.1 million has
been extended for battlefield acquisition, environmental
remediation, archeological investigation, academic scholarship
and other related activities. We've educated ourselves about
our own frontier history. I can tell you that we've been
immeasurably enriched by the process. Now, we stand ready to
share that history and that sacred soil with the citizens of
this Nation and the world.
Chairman Akaka, the River Raisin Battlefield is yours for
the asking. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Braunlich follows:]
Prepared Statement of William H. Braunlich, President, Monroe County
Historical Society, Monroe, MI, on S. 3247
The community of Monroe, Michigan, respectfully submits that the
River Raisin Battlefield meets, and in many ways exceeds, the
established criteria of national significance, suitability, and
feasibility for inclusion in the National Park System. In fact, the War
of 1812 River Raisin Battlefield represents a theme, site and resource
not already adequately represented in the National Park System. And, as
a tremendous bonus to the citizens of the United States of America, the
proposed River Raisin National Battlefield Park is located in Monroe
County, Michigan, the gateway county to the great state of Michigan. By
way of explanation, the proposed River Raisin National Battlefield Park
is located between Toledo, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan and is but a
stone's throw from I-75, the major traffic artery in the state of
Michigan. The proposed River Raisin National Battlefield Park will be
linked by walking trails to one of the most beautiful and frequented
state parks in the Michigan State Park System--Sterling State Park--and
is also extremely close to Plum Creek Bay on Lake Erie, recently
donated by the County of Monroe to the Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge. Thus, visitors will have easy access to a splendid
trifecta of War of 1812 history, exquisite natural habitat and
beautiful Lake Erie shoreline--a National Battlefield Park, an
International Wildlife Refuge and a Michigan State Park.
Who are we? The Monroe County Historical Society is a Michigan Non-
profit 501C3 Charitable Organization established in 1938 and governed
by a fifteen person board of directors. The Society's mission is to
collect, preserve, share and celebrate Monroe County History through
innovative exhibits, programs, publications and support of the Monroe
County Historical Museum and River Raisin Battlefield Museum.
The Society has been at the forefront of the River Raisin
Battlefield Project during the past decade and has funded numerous
battlefield initiatives dedicated to acquisition of the battlefield,
environmental remediation of the site, archeological research, academic
scholarship, and educational programming. The Society's objective is to
foster a broader awareness of the national significance of the River
Raisin Battlefield site and a deeper appreciation of the important
historical role that Frenchtown (now Monroe) played in the history of
North America. The Society has been joined, at every step of the way,
with committed partners from the City of Monroe, Port of Monroe, County
of Monroe, Monroe County Community College, the State of Michigan, and
the United States Government. To date, the grants, loans and in-kind
contributions committed to the River Raisin Battlefield project from
federal, state, local and non-governmental organizations exceeds 5.1
million dollars.
This past January of 2008, the Monroe County Historical Society
commissioned Dr. G. Michael Pratt of Heidelberg College to chair a
multi-disciplinary team of historians, archeologists and academicians
to draft a nomination of the River Raisin Battlefield as a National
Historical Landmark. The Society desired to compliment, assist, support
and accelerate the study by the National Park Service and provide
technical, historical and archeological data for inclusion of the River
Raisin Battlefield as a National Historic Landmark and as a prospective
unit of the national park system. Representatives of the National Park
met with members of the National Historic Landmark Nomination team in
April of 2008 and the River Raisin Battlefield was toured by the
Secretary of Interior on Saturday, July 26, 2008. The progress on the
River Raisin Battlefield Project has been impressive and substantial.
The Monroe County Historical Society has also commissioned Brian
Dunnigan, Interim Director of the world famous Clements Library, to
author a monograph on the national significance of the battles and
massacre of the River Raisin. Brian Dunnigan's monograph is attached
and incorporated into this written statement in favor of the River
Raisin Battlefield legislation before the Senate National Park
Subcommittee. By way of background, Brian Dunnigan is a highly
recognized and noted Michigan historian and author and also serves on a
National Park advisory committee. Brian Dunnigan's Statement on the
National Significance contributes greatly to the academic scholarship
on these important historical events and our contemporary understanding
of American formative history on the Northwest frontier.
We respectfully submit the following attachments* for consideration
by the US Senate Subcommitee on National Parks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files.
1. ``Statement of National Significance, River Raisin
Battlefield'' authored by Brian Leigh Dunnigan, Interim
Director, Head of Research and Publication, Curator of Maps,
William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan (4 pages);
2. ``The River Raisin Monuments at Monroe, Michigan,'' by
John M. Buckley, 141--154 [Volume 15 / 1906 / No. 2] (14
pages);
3. ``Monroe County Historical Society Funds Nomination of
River Raisin Battlefield as National Historic Landmark--Press
Release of February 15, 2008 (7 pages).
We are thrilled to report that through a tremendous community
collaborative, we have assembled the core parcels of real estate, both
by donation and by purchase. The River Raisin battlefield parcels are
held in readiness by the Port of Monroe, City of Monroe, County of
Monroe and the Monroe County Historical Society. The industrial
intrusions into the battlefield site have been almost completely
removed and the natural environment is being restored and reclaimed.
What the community of Monroe recognizes, and has recognized for a
very long time, is that our 1812 Battlefield and its compelling story
does not belong just to our city, or our county or even our great state
of Michigan. It belongs to the people of the United States of America.
Thus, we stand ready to transfer the River Raisin Battlefield to the
citizens of the United States of America and to celebrate its
incorporation into the National Park System. We are confident that the
energy and commitment of our community, as displayed during the past
decade of work on the battlefield project, will make this a successful
and celebrated inclusion into our National Park System and the perfect
way to commemorate the upcoming 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Braunlich for your
statement. I want to add my welcome to the Mayor and members of
Monroe County's Historical Society who are present here.
Mr. Braunlich, the Park Service's testimony states that
Congress should delay action in designating the River Raisin
National Battlefield Park until the special resource study is
completed. The standard procedure is to wait until the study is
finished. You've heard that it might take 2 to 3 years before
that occurs.
Can you tell us why you believe it is necessary to go ahead
and designate the national battlefield before the study is
done?
Mr. Braunlich. I'm happy to respond to that, Senator Akaka,
because I think our community has achieved a critical mass of
support. The battlefield parcels are owned by the Port of
Monroe, city of Monroe, County of Monroe and the Monroe County
Historical Society. At this point all of those organizations
stand ready to make conveyance of their respective parcels.
You know, I respect the National Park Service's typical
study times and profiles and protocols. I think that there has
been substantial and meaningful progress in that study. We're
extremely confident that ultimately the question of suitability
and feasibility will be answered in the affirmative.
But I think what the National Park Service failed to
recognize is that the upcoming bicentennial, it has created
just a wave of support for this initiative. We need to
capitalize on that support and use it to good advantage. The
community, I mean, I don't think any of us are going to be
around for the tercentennial, but this bicentennial has really
captured the imagination and support of the community.
There's not any question about feasibility. More than 40
acres is ready to be transferred to the United States. As far
as suitability, the property has been environmentally
remediated and almost all of the industrial intrusions into the
site have been removed. So I respect the standard protocol and
standard times, but I do think there are exceptional times to
recognize the support and the opportunity and to seize the
moment.
So I think that's the best response to the National Park
Service concern.
Senator Akaka. Ok. Thank you very much for your response.
Ms. Coline Jenkins, the National Park Service has
recommended deleting the two grant programs authorized in S.
1816 condemning that the new grant programs duplicate existing
State and Federal authorities. In your view, why are these
grant programs necessary?
Ms. Jenkins. First, I think they're necessary because
women's history, women's rights history, women's heritage is
playing catch up with other types of histories. I do not see
any problem with diverting resources to this catch up
operation. This is an operation that's nationwide.
It affects all 50 States. It's trying to work with highly
qualified organizations, the State historical preservation
offices, to inventory, evaluate and list properties. The
Senator who was recently here talked about its reasonable to
moderate public policy. This is the time to moderate public
policy.
We have had public policy that has favored one type of
history. Now it's a good idea to perhaps bring 51 percent of
the population into the story of history. These grants look at
two types.
They look at sites, but they look at material related to
sites. The grants make it possible. So I strongly support
having the grants.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Ms. Jenkins. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. May I call now on Commissioner Judge and ask
you--my understanding is that the County was involved in
negotiating the consent decree, and agreed to it. If this is
correct, can you explain why you are now supporting legislation
to overturn the consent decree?
Mr. Judge. In December 2007, Mr. Chairman, we had asked a
court to recognize Dare County as an intervener in the lawsuit
between the Defenders of the Wildlife, National Audubon and the
National Park Service, Department of Interior. The judge
granted that. However we were not a player at their table until
a hearing on April 4th in U.S. District Court when the judge
scolded the plaintiffs and defendants for negotiating behind
closed doors and not being open to the public.
It was only after that hearing that they paid some
attention to us. But it was even later than that when they
finally invited us to the table. But not to negotiate, to tell
us, to tell us what it was going to be.
We had our county attorney, assistant county manager in
Raleigh at the negotiations. They sent them home. After we
released a press release telling that the negotiations had
broken off, it was only then that they called us back.
It was 4:30 one afternoon when they gave us an ultimatum.
That ultimatum was either accept this by 5 o'clock or it will
go forward into court. The threat to Dare County was that the
seashore would be closed down completely until negotiated
rulemaking ran its course.
Negotiated rulemaking is not scheduled to be completed
until December 31, 2010, with implementation by April 1, 2011.
Sir, we can't afford to have our economy battered the way it's
been battered since April 30th that long. We've already had
businesses reporting greater than 50 percent declines. It's
been economically devastating to us.
Yes, we signed the document. We signed it under great
duress. We were not happy with it. We felt it was the lesser of
two evils.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your explanation of why you
supported legislation to overturn the consent decree.
Mr. Carter, the Park Service has established an advisory
committee to help the agency complete a long term ORV
management plan for the seashore. It is my understanding that
the committee membership represents all the diverse
stakeholders interested in the seashore. My question to you is
do you think, with the advisory committee's help, the Park
Service will be able to complete a long term management plan
that is acceptable to everyone?
Mr. Carter. Senator Akaka, the Secretary of the Interior
did establish in January a negotiated rulemaking committee
composed of various stakeholders who had a variety of interest
in the National Seashore. That group has been meeting
frequently. There are a variety of views presented.
The charge to that committee is to come up with and
recommend to the Park Service an ORV management plan for the
seashore. That can designate routes for ORV use, the types of
vehicles that can be used and of course a consideration and
that is the protection of resources on the seashore. We're
involved in that process.
Our clients are a part of that stakeholder group. The
counties are involved. The ORV groups are involved.
We're optimistic that a plan can be developed with input
from that committee and that the Park Service can come up with
a proposal that will both allow reasonable access and use and
ORV use of the seashore while at the same time, protecting the
natural resources on the seashore.
Senator Akaka. I thank you very much for your responses,
each of you. Again, I want to thank you for testifying this
afternoon before this committee. Your testimony has been very
helpful.
Before we close today I want to let you know that some
members of the committee who were not able to be here may
submit additional questions in writing. If we receive any
questions, we will forward them to you and ask you to respond
so that we may include both the questions and the answers in
the official hearing record.
Again I want to say thank you. It's going to help us with
our moves on these bills. I thank you again, this panel,
because you have responded to and have given us feelings of
your groups and all the people you represent as well.
Ms. Jenkins. Yes.
Senator Akaka. So again, thank you very much. This hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of William H. Braunlich to Questions From Senator Burr
ON S. 3247
Question 1. Is any of the land proposed for designation by S. 3247
under imminent threat of development if the battlefield park is not
established soon?
Answer. Senator Burr, you are expressing an appropriate and
continuing MAJOR concern for all of us involved in this tremendous
community collaborative---because the truth is that several or all of
the significant battlefield parcels could be sold to third parties and
developed in ways which are incompatible with the overall project. In
fact, the prior owner of the largest battlefield parcel (Homrich Inc.)
had been approached by a number of potential purchasers who were
interested in the battlefield site for residential, retail, and other
developments. That's why it's so very important to ``seize the moment''
and ``lock in'' the formal donation of the properties to the citizens
of the United States of America. Otherwise our incredible momentum
could be lost and the political winds could shift (at the City of
Monroe, County of Monroe, Port of Monroe and Monroe County Historical
Society) and the opportunity for the optimal acquisition, development
and interpretation of the River Raisin Battlefield could be permanently
destroyed.
I have been involved with this project for almost 12 years and I
don't think the stars and planets will align again this way for the
optimal development of the battlefield. All of the major stakeholders
in the project stand ready to make conveyance of their respective
parcels to the citizens of the United States of America. However, time
is of the essence. The threat to the River Raisin Battlefield would
become imminent at the slightest suggestion that a major economic
development project was under consideration at this site. In light of
the economic woes of our local community and the State of Michigan, the
River Raisin Battlefield, which is extremely near to all of the
transportation modalities, may look quite enticing to developers. Such
an economic development proposal would generate a true and imminent
threat to the acquisition, study, development and proper intrepretation
of the River Raisin Battlefield site.
Question 2. Was any of the suitability and feasibility study
completed prior to National Park Service involvement? If so, how much
and is it being used to expedite the study process?
Answer. There has been a considerable body of work by a number of
academicians, historians, archeologists, and historic preservationists
during the past decade and PRIOR to the NPS study. At Congressman
Dingell's request, the NPS had been to several meetings of the RR
Battlefield prior to the commencement of the special resource study.
Further, to support, assist, compliment and accelerate the NPS special
resource study, the Monroe County Historical Society commissioned a
formal National Historic Landmark (NHL) nomination through Dr. Michael
Pratt of Heidelberg College, and asked our NHL team to promptly
assemble all of the available materials and get the NPS everything they
need regarding the site. It may not be politically correct to say so,
but I believe our NHL team is doing the rigorous historical and
archeological spade work and thus, tremendously ``facilitating'' the
NPS study.
In the words of Dr. Ted Ligibel, director of Eastern Michigan's
University's Historic Preservation Program and a key member of our NHL
River Raisin Battlefield team: ``We are reviewing war records from the
British government from 1812-1814; taking testimony from those with
knowledge of the site; reviewing newspaper accounts and reading first
hand accounts from people who were there. We are leaving no stone
unturned.'' I would hasten to add that all of this work by Dr Ligabell
and the other team members is being generously paid for by the Monroe
County Historical Society is being transmitted to the National Park
Service free of charge.
Question 3. What was the size of the original battlefield and how
much of the site is still available for designation and interpretation
as a battlefield park?
Answer. I would have to defer to our NHL team to answer the
question about the ``original size'' of River Raisin Battlefield
because that question requires certain assumptions about the time,
location and scope of the series of activities on the River Raisin
Battlefield. I can say with certainty, however, that the combined
acreage of the proposed donations to the US government (approximately
40 acres) incorporates the most important, desirable and historically
significant land for designation and interpretation as a battlefield
park. To be specific, the proposed donation of land includes the
acreage where the original settlement of Frenchtown was located and
where the majority of fighting occurred.
______
Responses of Coline Jenkins to Questions From Senator Burr
ON S. 1816
Question 1. Will the proposed commemorative trail have any impact
on private property?
Answer. Sites would be listed on the trail only with permission
from property owners. There is no land acquisition authority in this
bill and no land acquisition would be sought. Many of the likely sites
are currently owned by government or nonprofit institutions.
Question 2. Do you envision a visitor center for this trail at some
point or does a suitable venue already exist to serve as an information
center for the trail?
Answer. The trail would be administered by Women's Rights National
Historical Park in Seneca Falls and Waterloo, NY (established by PL 96-
607). A comprehensive visitor center exists in the Park that would
serve as the information center for the trail.
Question 3. How many individual sites would become part of the
commemorative trail and how many of those are currently owned by the
Federal government?
Answer. While criteria for listing on the trail would need to be
developed, preliminary assessment found that roughly 30-35 sites may be
listed on this commemorative trail. Of those sites, two are owned by
the Federal government and are under the stewardship of the National
Park Service--Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls
and Waterloo, NY and Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site in Hyde
Park, NY.
Question 4. Will it become necessary for the Federal government to
purchase or lease any land or structures to establish the Women's
Suffrage Commemorative Trail?
Answer. No, there is no Federal land acquisition or any lease
requirements involved in the establishment and operation of the trail.
______
Responses of Warren Judge to Questions From Senator Burr
ON S. 3113
Question 1. How has use of Cape Hatteras changed under the court-
approved agreement versus the interim management plan?
Answer. Decades of the tradition of going to the beach at Oregon
Inlet, Cape Point, South Beach and Hatteras Inlet were disrupted from
the first of May until the end of July. Today, Oregon Inlet is still
closed to people. This has been a psychological and cultural shock to
thousands of residents and visitors alike. While there are some beaches
open for people to use in front of the Villages and other areas of the
Seashore, the areas listed above are world renowned and are the
favorite of all users. The closed beaches were the most heavily used
under the interim plan. It is important to point out that there are
very few accesses to the seashore in the National Seashore Recreational
Area; closing down these four areas has had a dramatic impact on
access. While there are other choices for recreation where there are
open areas, the closures alter the prime uses of the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area.
Question 2. Has the Cape Hatteras area experienced any economic
impact as a result of the court-approved agreement being implemented?
Answer. Yes, there has been economic impact from the closures.
Statistics are just now being complied by Dare County with respect to
occupancy and meals tax revenue. In May the motel segment of the
lodging industry was down 4.2%, In June the motel industry was down
7.6%, campgrounds were down 19.3%, cottages courts were down 8.7%. On
an individual basis, I will share the records of one very prominent
business in Buxton, the Red Drum Tackle Shop. The owner reports the
following decline in sales: May--17%, June--35%, July--23% and for the
first 13 days of August--17%. Many other businesses are reporting the
same type of decreases. It is important to understand that the motels,
campgrounds, and cottage courts are lodging businesses that operate on
a day of arrival or 24 to 72 hour window for cancellations. In other
words, you can cancel your reservations for any reason within the
cancellation window that your reservation was made under. The visitors
who use these accommodations were able to react to the closures and
cancel their trips and receive refunds of their deposits. The rental
home industry, on the other hand, is one that requires full payment
months in advance and the visitors who reserve these accommodations
have no recourse to a refund should they want to cancel. As a result,
the rental home visitors had no choice but to honor their reservations
despite the closures or lose their money. Dare County is concerned how
the closures, which this year caught thousands of these rental home
visitors off guard, will affect next year's reservations and rentals of
these homes. If this group of visitors elects not to come to the
Seashore because of the beach closures, as the more transient visitor
did this season, the negative economic impacts will be even more
dramatic.
Question 3. Have you heard from any of your colleagues in the
neighboring counties of Hyde, Currituck and Carteret? What impacts have
they experienced since the court-approved agreement has been in place?
Answer. We have not heard from anyone in Carteret County. Currituck
County Commissioners share our concerns and will share data with us as
they are able to compute results. Hyde County sent the following
statement:
Hyde County supports balanced use of our public lands so that
they can be enjoyed by residents and guests while supporting
natural habitat. That balance is critical to sustaining our
economy, our culture and the beauty of our area.
Facing the loss of all use of the beaches this spring and
summer, Hyde County endorsed the ORV beach closure settlement
in April 2008. It was the right decision at the time but Hyde
County needs help returning balance to the jobs/culture-birds/
turtles teeter-totter.
The impact of the settlement was quick and bad for the people
of Ocracoke who depend upon spring tourism. Shortly after the
ORV beach closure settlement was signed on April 30, the
National Park Service shut down parts of the beaches and then
fully closed large areas along the north and south ends of
Ocracoke. Despite normal weather without major storms, Hatteras
to Ocracoke ferry passenger counts were DOWN over 11% in June
DOWN 9.4% in July.
After being named ``Best Beach'' in May 2007, it would be a
logical assumption that all the 2007 positive advertising would
cause Hatteras-Ocracoke ferry passenger traffic to be UP in
2008, but that is not the case. It is impossible to know the
damage of the constant rattle of beaches closure press articles
but anecdotal evidence has been seen in numerous emails from
visitors.
We have heard reports from environmental groups that more
birds and turtles nested this summer. That wonderful success
may have NOTHING to do with the ORV beach closure settlement.
Rather, we have enjoyed a summer free of most normal storms.
Also, Hyde County has been told that last winter the National
Park Service had an extensive trapping program of fox, raccoons
and feral cats--all of which enjoy the eggs and hatchlings of
birds and turtles. We have no data about the extent of the NPS
trapping program nor its potential impact on the number of
birds and turtles.
Hyde County supports enhancement of our natural resources,
strengthening our economy, and maintaining our special culture.
We hope that Congress will restore balance to an equation that
is now seriously off-kilter by adopting a reasonable approach
to maintaining public use of Ocracoke beaches.
Question 4. Has there been any increase in beach traffic in other
areas since the court-approved agreement has been followed?
Answer. No, we have not experienced any increase in traffic in any
other areas of the County. The closure areas were the major areas in
Dare County for ORV use. There are few other choices for this user
group. There is a direct correlation in loss of business in the
northern beach area with the closure of Oregon Inlet. Oregon Inlet and
Bodie Island Spit are in the National Seashore Recreational Area; this
area is north of the Inlet and used more by residents and visitors who
stay in the beach towns, on Roanoke Island or the mainland.
______
Responses of Daniel N. Wenk to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. You testified on the need for further discussions with
the Forest Service, which has called for further study of the boundary
modification. However, didn't the NEPA-compliant 1998 General
Management Plan for the Oregon Caves National Monument already address
this issue and come out recommending an expanded boundary?
Answer. Section 4 of the bill would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to transfer the proposed expansion area to the Secretary of
the Interior, and to adjust the boundary of the Rogue RiverSiskiyou
National Forest to exclude the transferred land. A comprehensive
General Management Plan ((IMP) and accompanying Environmental Impact
Statement were completed for Oregon Caves National Monument in 1998.
The GMP and Record of Decision recommended that 3,410 acres be
transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to the National Park Service
to protect the Lake Creek and upper Cave Creek watersheds, the public
water supply, and the foreground and middle ground viewsheds as seen
from the Monument. S. 3148 would transfer 4,070 acres, including the
3,410 acres that were recommended for addition in the GMP and about 650
acres that were not evaluated in the GMP. Further, although the major
portion of the expansion proposal, which was developed in compliance
with NEPA, has been a part of the Oregon Caves National Monument GMP
since 1998, no coordinated study or formal dialogue between the
Departments has taken place in the intervening period.
Question 2. How much did your NEPA review and preparation of the
General Management Plan cost?
Answer. It cost $60,000 to develop the GMP and Environmental Impact
Statement.
Question 3. Is your Management Plan still valid or are you planning
on revoking it?
Answer. The 1998 GMP, which recommended a 3,410 acre boundary
expansion, is valid.
Question 4. Can you please provide a copy of the General Management
Plan EIS, as well as any modifications made to it or proposed to be
made to it?
Answer. An electronic copy of the GMP has been provided to the
committee and Senator Wyden's office. There have been no amendments to
the GMP and none are currently planned.
Question 5. How is your testimony, which appears to be a shift from
the 1998 General Management Plan--which recommends expansion--
consistent with the Centennial Challenge, which seeks to expand and
enhance National Parks, and the Park's own 2007 Centennial Strategy
document which lays out a goal of providing further education on the
plan to expand the boundary?
Answer. The National Park Service testimony indicates support for
the intent of S. 3148, consistent with the GMP for the park, but
recommends that action be deferred to allow for further interagency
consultation. The testimony is also consistent with the park's
Centennial Strategy, which encourages educating park partners, the US
Forest Service, and local communities about the importance of
protecting the park's water resources and scenic viewsheds.
Question 6. How would further study avoid duplicating past process,
paperwork and expense already undertaken to review the issue of
boundary expansion?
Answer. We do not believe that further study is necessary at this
time. However, we believe that it would be beneficial to explore ways
to maintain continuity and interagency coordination on issues related
to forest health and recreational opportunities.
Question 7. My understanding is that every National Park has a fire
management plan and an officer assigned to it and that the recent fires
in California have shown that National Park Service lands have
responded well in slowing down advancing fires because they have been
well managed to withstand these fires. Can you detail for me what
experience the National Park Service has in managing lands for fire
resiliency?
Answer. The National Park Service wildland fire management and
resource management programs work collaboratively to support NPS
Management Policies and unit-specific goals and objectives for how
wildland fire will be managed. The goal of wildland fire management is
to restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems while protecting life,
property and resources from adverse effects of fire. NPS has been
successful across the nation in managing lands in all sizes of units by
applying fire and managing unplanned fires on those lands to restore
and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems. That success has been predicated
upon having a fire management plan with clear direction, good science
to understand the natural process, supportive management staff, an
understanding public, and experienced fire management staff to
implement necessary actions.
Wildland fire is one of nature's major change forces, similar to
floods and winds. Fire is a natural part of the landscape in fire-
adapted ecosystems. Our ability to manage it is dependent upon the
condition of the land prior to the event. The NPS philosophy is to do
active adaptive management to keep the landscape in balance so that
recovery from disturbance will be part of the natural process and
require minimal intervention.
Question 8. What fire and forest restoration activities have been
undertaken by the Park Service in the Oregon Caves National Monument?
Answer. The National Park Service has engaged in mechanical methods
of thinning to reduce fuel loading at Oregon Caves National Monument.
Prescribed fire has also been used.
Question 9. What is the precedent regarding hunting on National
Monuments? Can you identify any policies regarding this issue and
whether there are National Monuments with hunting allowed?
Answer. Hunting is permitted only in units of the National Park
System where it is specifically authorized by federal law. Of the units
where sport hunting is authorized, none are designated national parks.
Most NPS units where hunting is authorized are designated national
preserves, national recreation areas, national seashores/lakeshores, or
national rivers. Hunting is only authorized in two national monuments
managed by NPS: Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument and Grand
Canyon-Parashant National Monument (which is jointly managed by NPS and
BLM).
Question 10. What experience does the National Park Service have on
fencing out non-native animals?
Answer. The National Park Service has extensive experience with
fencing out non-native animals. For example, fencing is used at
Haleakala National Park to exclude feral pigs and goats to allow the
restoration of native ecosystems and to protect endangered species. At
Pinnacles National Monument, fencing is being used to exclude feral
pigs, and at Grand Canyon National Park and other western parks,
fencing is routinely used to exclude domestic cattle and sheep.
Question 11. Can you please provide a list of other instances where
there are Wild and Scenic River designations within National Parks or
National Monuments?
Answer. Below please find a list of NPS-managed wild and scenic
rivers within a designated national park or a designated national
monument. In addition to this list, the NPS also manages wild and
scenic rivers within other types of units of the National Park System
such as national recreation areas and national scenic riverways; NPS
also manages some stand-alone wild and scenic rivers, such as the
Farmington National Wild and Scenic River.
Question 12. Can you provide me a copy of all the correspondence
between the National Park Service and the Forest Service regarding the
potential contamination of the Caves' drinking water supply from
grazing?
Answer. Electronic copies of the correspondence have been provided
to the committee and to Senator Wyden's office.
Responses of Daniel N. Wenk to Questions From Senator Burr
In the absence of a rule for off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras,
the National Park Service completed a biological assessment, obtained a
formal biological opinion from US Fish and Wildlife Service, and
prepared an interim management strategy that addressed threatened and
endangered species and allowed for public access.
Question 13a. During the time in which the interim management
strategy was followed, did the National Park Service comply with the
terms of the formal biological opinion?
Answer. NPS complied with the ``Reasonable and Prudent Measures''
and with the ``Terms and Conditions'' of the original August 2006
Biological Opinion (BO); however, in 2007 NPS failed to meet
performance measures that were established in the March 2007 amended
BO. (See next answer for details.)
Question 13b. Did any taking of threatened or endangered species
beyond what is allowed by the biological opinion occur while the
interim management plan was in place?
Answer. The take of a threatened or endangered species did not
occur beyond what was allowed under the 2006 BO; however, NPS exceeded
the incidental take allowed under the amended 2007 BO.
The original August 2006 130 expected that an undeterminable level
of incidental take of breeding and migrating piping plovers and of all
species of sea turtles would occur under the interim strategy. The BO
also stated that the incidental take would be difficult to detect for
multiple reasons, including: 1) breeding adults may be scared away or
prevented from nesting; 2) dead young are easily covered by sand or
carried away by waves or predators and may not be detected; and, 3) not
all nests may be detected over the 55 miles of seashore.
In response to the 2006 BO, NPS developed performance measures,
which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted in an amended 130 in
March 2007. Six performance measures were specified:
1) Number of breeding pairs of piping plover (4 or more);
2) Number of piping plover nests (3 or more nests or 75% of
the total number of pairs);
3) Number of chicks fledged per nest (1 chick per nest);
4) NPS would develop a systematic monitoring program for
wintering piping plover;
5) The ratio of false crawls to sea turtle nests would not
exceed 1:1, which is the ratio that has been observed on
undisturbed beaches; and
6) The number of sea turtle nests on Cape Hatteras National
Seashore (Seashore) would equal or exceed 10 percent of the
past five-year average number of sea turtle nests in North
Carolina.
In 2007, NPS met performance measures 1, 2, 4, and 5, but failed to
meet 3 and 6. There were 11 piping plover nests, but only 4 chicks
fledged (the target was 11). The ratio of false crawls to sea turtles
nests was 1.39: 1 (114 false crawls to 82 nests). As a result, NPS
initiated and completed re-consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service during the winter of 2007-08.
Question 13c. How long has the court-approved consent decree been
in place? Has there been any increase in beach traffic within the park
and adjacent areas since the consent decree has been followed?
Answer. The consent decree was approved by the court on April 30,
2008 and went into effect immediately. Implementation of the measures
in the consent decree has resulted in larger and earlier closures at
key breeding sites and a reduction in the total amount of area open for
access compared to 2007. In general, we are seeing a redistribution of
traffic from closed areas to open areas. However, we do not have a good
system for counting vehicles on the beach, so we do not know how the
numbers compare to years previous to operating under the consent
decree.
Question 13d. How does management of Cape Hatteras differ under the
interim management plan versus the consent decree?
Answer. Under the interim strategy, NPS established ``prenesting
areas'' at key piping plover breeding sites by April 1 and surveyed 66
miles of ocean, inlet, and sound shoreline from March 15--September 15
for bird breeding activity. NPS also patrolled over 55 miles of ocean
shoreline daily from May 1--September 15 to survey for sea turtle nests
and conducted law enforcement patrols of beaches, primarily during
daylight hours, to enforce beach driving and resource protection
requirements. After the prenesting areas were in place, whenever bird
breeding behavior was observed or chicks had hatched on any Seashore
beach, NPS implemented, expanded or modified the resource protection
closures based on buffer distances identified in the interim strategy.
Resource protection closures were removed when breeding activity
concluded. In 2007, NPS staff implemented 389 such management actions
(closures, modifications, or closure removals).
Under the consent decree, NPS must establish the prenesting areas
by March 15 and increase the frequency of monitoring at six key sites
to daily through July 15. When subsequent bird breeding activity is
observed on any Seashore beach, NPS implements buffer distances
identified in the consent decree, which are larger than those
identified in the interim strategy. The buffers must he installed
around observed breeding activity within 8 daylight hours, and around
nests and chicks within 6 daylight hours. The consent decree buffer
distances are based on management recommendations for the Seashore that
were prepared in 2005 by U.S. Geological Survey scientists, and are as
follows:
Species Breeding Behavior/Nest (m) Unfledged Chicks (m)
Piping plover 50 300 pedestrian (1000 ORV)
Least Tern 100 200
Other colonial waterbirds 200 200
American oystercatcher 150 200
The consent decree also established a new prohibition on night
driving from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1--November 15 to protect and
improve sea turtle nesting, except that night driving may be allowed
from September 15--November 15 with an educational permit.
Question 13e. How many times did the National Park Service start
and stop the preparation of an off-road vehicle management rule-making
since the requirement was imposed by Executive Order in 1972 and what
was the basis for stopping each time?
Answer. ORV plans and regulations were attempted but not completed
twice each. In 1978 NPS prepared a draft interim ORV management plan
for the Seashore. The planning process apparently stalled at the
Regional Office and the plan and environmental compliance were never
completed. ORV management was also addressed in a 1980 local ``plan''
(or local policy) for the North District of the Seashore; however, it
did not meet the planning and NEPA compliance requirements needed in
order to be considered a formal plan. In 1973 and 1990, the Seashore
submitted draft regulations through the NPS Southeast Regional Office
to the Washington Office. The regulations were not promulgated. It is
not clear to us why any of these actions were not completed.
Question 13f. How has the annual visitation for Cape Hatteras
changed each year in the past 5 years and can you point to any specific
factors that contributed to the change? How does that compare with
visitation across the entire national park system as a whole during the
same time?
Answer. The yearly counts for visitation at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore over the past 5 years are as follows:
2007--2.237 million
2006--2.125 million
2005--2.261 million
2004--2.208 million
2003--2.661 million
There was a relatively significant drop from 2003-2004 (about 17%),
We know that there was a lot of storm activity, including Hurricane
Isabel in the late summer and fall of 2004 that affected visitation
that year. We do not know the reasons for the numbers changing since
then, but it is common to have fluctuations in visitation, and often
there are many different factors that contribute to the change.
Yearly counts for visits to all units of the National Park System
are as follows:
2007--275,581,547
2006--272,623,980
2005--273,488,751
2004--276,908,337
2003--266,099,641
A significant factor in the change in total NPS visitation from
2003 to 2004 was the opening of the World War [I Memorial, which drew
more than 5 million visitors in 2004.
Question 13g. The NPS testimony states: ``Although the breeding
season is not yet completed, it appears that actions taken under the
consent decree have been beneficial for resource protection. Under the
consent decree, the Seashore has experienced an increase in the number
of breeding pairs of piping plover from 6 pair in 2006 and 2007, to 11
pairs in 2008. As of July 19, 2008, there were 83 sea turtle nests on
the Seashore compared to 49 nests last year at this time.'' The consent
decree was approved by the court on April 30, 2008. (i) When did the
piping plover breeding season begin in 2008 and when does it end? (ii)
flow long is the incubation period for the piping plover and how many
clutches does a nesting pair produce per year? (iii) How long from the
time of hatching does it take for a piping plover to become
reproductively viable? (iv) How can you he certain that an increase in
piping plover breeding pairs is the result of the consent decree when a
complete reproductive season has not occurred under the decree; is it
possible that more birds than usual survived the winter and were
available to nest in 2008 for reasons unrelated to the consent decree?
Please answer the same questions for the sea turtle.
Answer. Piping plovers are present at the Seashore throughout the
entire year with breeding typically beginning between mid-March and
mid-April. It is difficult to determine if birds present on the beach
during the spring are breeding birds or wintering migrants traveling to
breeding grounds further north. In 2008, the Seashore observed its
first evidence of breeding, a nest scrape, on April 4 at Cape Point.
The end of breeding season is variable and dependent upon the nesting
and fledgling success of early season nests. Typically, the breeding
season ends late August. This year the last piping plover chick fledged
on July 12, but in 2007 the last chick fledged on August 14. The
average incubation period for piping plovers is 26 days and plovers
typically produce one clutch per year if they are successful; however,
depending on various conditions such as storm events, tidal flooding,
and predators, plovers may re-nest numerous times until they are
successful or the breeding season ends. Piping plovers are generally
reproductively viable in 1-2 years.
Sea turtles nest at the Seashore during the summer months with
hatchling emergence occurring in the late summer and fall months.
Typically nesting begins in mid-May and continues until nests hatch by
late October. In 2008, the Seashore documented its first sea turtle
nest on May 18; as of August 29, the Seashore has had 112 nests. The
incubation period for sea turtle nests is highly dependent upon the
temperatures of the eggs, which can be affected by daily temperatures,
tides, storms, humidity, depth of the nest, and placement of the nest
on the beach. Incubation periods average 60 days, but can range 48-100
days. Sea turtle species at the Seashore typically lay 4-5 clutches
each season depending on body condition, environmental factors, and
threats. It is generally thought to take about 35 years for a sea
turtle to become reproductively viable.
It is possible that this year's nesting success for piping plovers
and sea turtles is due to multiple factors, not just the consent
decree. Animal populations fluctuate as a result of many factors,
including genetics, prey availability, suitable and available habitat,
environmental conditions, storm events, natural and man-made
disturbances, and predators. All of these factors, which can occur
during migration, breeding, and nesting stages, influence the success
of a particular species. Determining a definitive cause-and-effect
relationship between nesting success and the management requirements
under the consent decree would require a comprehensive approach to
species use of the Seashore and the associated influences affecting
them, necessitating study over a number of years.
ON S. 3148
Question 14a. S. 3148 would increase the size of Oregon Caves
National Monument by more than 10-fold. What changes in manpower and
funding requirements does the National Park Service anticipate because
of that increase?
Answer. NPS anticipates it will cost approximately $300,000 to
$750,000 per year to administer the new lands, including management,
administration, interpretation, resource protection, and maintenance.
The range in this estimate is due to the uncertainties of what actions
will be necessary on these lands to meet the ecological forest
restoration program required by Section 6(b) of the bill.
Question 14b. How many acres of National Park Service land
throughout the US include grazing permits and approximately how many
AUMs (Animal Unit Months) are involved?
Answer. As of FY 2004, NPS had grazing at 31 units of the National
Park System, totaling 1,580,000 acres and 71,000 AUMs.
Question 14c. What are the National Park Service policies for
managing grazing permits and if S. 3148 is enacted, will the existing
grazing management plan remain in place until the permits have been
relinquished?
Answer. NPS policies prohibit grazing except 1) as specifically
authorized by statute; or 2) as required by a reservation of use right
arising from the acquisition of a tract of land; 3) as required in
order to maintain a historical scene; or 4) as carried out as part of a
living exhibit or interpretive demonstration; or 5) as used to achieve
resource conditions as part of an integrated pest management (IPM)
plan. Grazing is only allowed where it does not cause unacceptable
impacts on park resources and values.
Under S. 3148, 1,263 acres of the approximately 24,000 acre grazing
allotment would be transferred to the National Park Service. The NPS
would continue to work with the US Forest Service to administer the
existing grazing allotment until such time as the permit expires or the
allotment is retired.
Question 14d. How much of the land involved in this proposed
expansion is in private ownership and have any of the owners objected
to this proposal?
Answer. There is no private land involved in the proposed
expansion.
Question 14e. We have heard Senator Smith and his concern about the
Park Service perhaps not maintaining the grazing permit holder's
grazing rights if the permit is not bought out. Can you tell me why you
think the Park Service is better qualified to manage these permits than
say the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management?
Answer. Oregon Caves National Monument has worked alongside the
Forest Service in its planning and implementation of the Grayback
allotment and would continue to do so if this small portion of the
allotment were to be transferred to the monument.
Question 14f. The Oregon Cave National Monument is a fairly small
Park Service unit isn't that correct? Do you have sufficient budget and
personnel to undertake the fuels treatments (i.e., logging, thinning,
controlled burns) that will need to be done to the land your agency
would acquire as a result of this bill?
Answer. Oregon Caves National Monument is relatively small for a
unit preserved for its natural resources. The park works closely with
Forest Service in developing and implementing its fire management plan,
which has included conducting fuel treatment projects and prescribed
fire within the existing monument boundary. One of the reasons that we
request that the committee defer action on S. 3148 is so that we can
coordinate with the Forest Service to determine how best to accomplish
the fuels treatment that will be necessary on the lands in question,
Question 14g. Will hunting be allowed to continue on these lands if
they are transferred to the Oregon Cave Monument?
Answer. It is against NPS policies to allow hunting except where
specifically authorized by law. One of the reasons we request that the
committee defer action on this bill is so that we can coordinate with
the Forest Service to determine how best to continue to provide a wide
range of recreational activities to monument and forest visitors.
ON S. 3247
Question 15a. When does the National Park Service anticipate
completing the suitability and feasibility study for River Raisin
Battlefield Park?
Answer. At this point, we anticipate concluding the study by the
summer of 2010. The study is being coordinated closely with the
national historic landmark (NHL) nomination also currently under
development. This coordination is necessary in this case as criteria
for NHL designation is applied in determining whether or not the
property is nationally significant, the first criterion of a special
resource study. This means that, to some extent, the study schedule is
dependent on the timing of the evaluation of the NHL nomination. The
soonest that the first level of evaluation for the NHL, nomination will
occur is the spring of 2009.
Question 15b. How common is it to designate a new unit of the
national park system without first completing a study?
Answer. It is not very common for Congress to designate a new unit
without the National Park Service first completing a special resource
study. We have found that Congress relies heavily on the information
provided in a completed study, including recommendations for the
boundary and any special authorities needed, to help shape legislation
designating a new unit. The National Park Service considers the
information gained by a special resource study essential to
establishing a sound unit, which is why NPS typically asks Congress to
defer action on legislation designating a new unit until the study of
the site has been completed.
Question 15c. Has the National Park Service encountered any issues
in the course of the study that might lead to a negative recommendation
for designation?
Answer. The National Park Service has just begun work on the
special resource study and does not have sufficient information on any
issues to provide either a negative or positive recommendation for
designation.
Question 15d. Has the National Park Service found any compelling
reason in the course of the study to justify designation before the
study is completed?
Answer. No. Having both a completed special resource study and a
NHL nomination would provide information necessary to make an accurate
determination on whether the site is nationally significant and
suitable and feasible to be designated as a unit of the National Park
System, as well as whether administration by the NPS would be the best
management option.
ON S. 1816
Question 16a. How many other instances has Congress authorized a
grant program to be administered by the Department of the Interior
without a funding ceiling?
Answer. We are not aware of any grant program administered by the
NPS that does not have an authorized funding ceiling.
Question 16b. Has the National Park Service completed a study of
the proposed ``Women's Suffrage Commemorative Trail'' and what was the
outcome of the study?
Answer. NPS completed a feasibility study that was transmitted to
Congress in January 2004. The final report concluded that while there
are a large number of sites associated with the struggle for women's
suffrage in the Northeast, a trail from Massachusetts to Buffalo was
not viable. It found a large concentration of sites in the corridor
from roughly Syracuse to Rochester, New York. Seneca Falls and
Waterloo, where the nation's first women's rights convention was
planned and held in 1848, lie in the center of this concentration. The
study found that a ``Votes for Women'' History Trail, a vehicular tour
route connected to Women's Rights National Historical Park, could link
sites associated with the struggle for women's suffrage to support the
recognition, promotion, and protection of properties connected to
women's rights history.
Question 16c. How many sites would be associated with this trail
and how many of those are existing units of the national park system?
Answer. Based on a preliminary assessment, there may be roughly 30-
35 sites on the trail. Two of the sites, Women's Rights National
Historical Park and Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site, are NPS
units. Many of the sites on the trail would be National Register-listed
properties or national historic landmarks. Specific criteria would be
developed for sites to be considered for inclusion on this trail.
ON S. 2093
Question 17a. Has any other entity conducted any type of assessment
of the rivers that could he incorporated into a NPS study?
Answer. Yes, the State of Vermont has been assessing non-point
agricultural run-off issues in the Missisquoi basin and is developing a
management plan to address those issues in conjunction with local
communities and partners, including the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Missisquoi River Basin Association. NPS has met with local and
state contacts and are in agreement that this ongoing planning and
assessment work would be incorporated into the Wild and Scenic River
study.
Question 17b. How many suitability and feasibility studies is the
NPS currently authorized by Congress to conduct and how many of those
are for wild and scenic rivers?
Answer. There are currently 34 studies pending for new units,
heritage areas, rivers and trails. Of the 34, three are currently
underway for wild and scenic rivers:
New River in West Virginia and Virginia
Lower Farmington River in Connecticut
Taunton River in Massachusetts.
ON S. 2535
Question 18a. How much land is involved in this boundary adjustment
and how much of it is in private ownership?
Answer. There are 261 acres involved in this boundary adjustment.
Of this acreage, 198 acres are owned in easement or fee by a non-profit
land conservation organization, the Open Space Institute, with another
non-profit land conservation agency, Equity Trust, having fee ownership
of 101 of those acres. The remaining 63 acres are owned by three
private owners.
Question 18b. Have any property owners within the proposed
expansion area objected to being included within the boundary?
Answer. Currently none of the property owners within the proposed
expansion area object to being included within the boundary. In the
original proposed boundary expansion, there were two property owners
who indicated that they did not wish to be included in the boundary
change at this time, so their properties (totaling 70 acres) were
removed from the proposed boundary expansion.
Question 18c. How will the National Park Service use the property
that is proposed for acquisition?
Answer. The majority of the land, approximately 173 acres, will
remain under private ownership and management and will continue to be
farmed. Sections of these lands that were part of Van Buren's original
farm, and which still retain original landscape features from Van
Buren's tenure, will become accessible to visitors which will help them
to gain a better understanding of Lindenwald. Approximately 25 acres
that would be donated in fee would provide additional options for
locating operational structures and visitor facilities so they would
not impact the cultural landscape.
ON S. 2561
Question 19a. Approximately how many sites would be included in the
Cold War Theme Study if this bill is enacted?
Answer. We do not know right now how many sites would be looked at.
There are thousands of places that have an historical association with
the Cold War, but only a very few will be of exceptional national
significance and have a high degree of integrity, two characteristics
they would need to qualify for NHL designation.
Question 19b. Are any of the sites for potential study currently
active military sites?
Answer. We do not know if any of the sites are currently active
military sites. That is something we would determine as we begin to
look at the most significant Cold War sites.
Question 19c. What role would DoD have in the proposed theme study?
Answer. The legislation specifies that consideration should be
given to the inventory of sites and resources associated with the Cold
War that was done by the Defense Department pursuant to the 1991
legislation which established the DOD Legacy Resource Management
Program [Section 8120(b)(9) of Public Law 101-511]. We would be drawing
from work DOD has already done to identify these resources. In
addition, the study calls for the Secretary of the Interior to consult
with the Secretary of the Air Force on the study. Thus, we would ensure
that we had the input of Air Force personnel as we frame the study and
identify resources.
Question 19d. Have any prior studies of Cold War sites been
conducted and what were the findings and recommendations?
Answer. The Air Force conducted a special resource study of the
Minute Man Missile site in South Dakota as part of the Legacy Resource
Management Program prior to Congress' designation of the site as a unit
of the National Park System in 1999. The Air Force also conducted
historical studies on a number of other individual facilities, such as
flight training centers and communication and command centers. However,
there has not been a study of the kind proposed by this legislation--a
study that would look at Cold War resources in a systematic and
comprehensive manner.
Question 19e. What is the estimated cost of the proposed study and
how long will it take to complete?
Answer. Typically, National Historic Landmark theme studies are
estimated to cost between $250,000 and $400,000. The proposed study
could take 3-5 years to complete, depending on the completion of
current and pending studies already authorized by the Congress.
ON S. 3011
Question 20a. What is the existing land area of the Palo Alto
Battlefield National Historic Site and how much acreage will this bill
add?
Answer. The current acreage of the park is approximately 3,408
acres, of which approximately 1,315 acres are federally owned. S. 3011
would add 34 acres.
Question 20b. How does the National Park Service intend to use the
land acquired as a result of this legislation?
Answer. The land would be added to the boundary of the park but may
not ever be owned by NPS. The Brownsville Community Foundation, which
owns the property, has proposed an administrative building for the
site. If built, the foundation would use part of the building and NPS
would use part of this building. If the land is acquired by the park,
it would be interpreted along with the rest of the park as part of the
American-Mexican war.
Question 20c. How much of the proposed expansion area is privately
owned and have any owners objected to the boundary adjustment?
Answer. The entire 34 acres are owned by the not-for-profit
Brownsville Community Foundation, which wants the land to be included
within the park boundary.
ON S. 3226
Question 21a. What is the estimated cost associated with changing
the name of this site?
Answer. The only costs would be those associated with changing the
name on signs, brochures, and other materials, which would be minimal.
Question 21b. Do you anticipate any budget increase or change in
personnel as a result of this name change?
Answer. No. The costs would be absorbed in existing budgets. There
would be no impact on personnel.
ON H.R. 5137
Question 22a. The current authorization for New River Gorge
National River says hunting may be allowed. Has the National Park
Service taken any steps to prevent hunting that would cause hunters to
be concerned?
Answer. No. Hunting has been allowed at New River Gorge since the
area was designated as a unit of the National Park System in 1978. The
park's 1982 GMP determined that hunting was an appropriate activity,
and since that time, NPS has permitted hunting on lands owned and
administered by NPS, except in areas of developed recreational
facilities for reasons of public safety.
Question 22b. Is there any reason why hunting should not be allowed
in New River Gorge National River?
Answer. No. NPS is cognizant of the importance of hunting to the
local community as well as the ecological implications of hunting
within New River Gorge. For both reasons, hunting has been determined
to be appropriate at New River Gorge National River.
Question 22c. What has transpired since the New River Gorge
National River was established as a park unit that would cause concern
for future hunting opportunities?
Answer. NPS has allowed hunting at New River Gorge since its
inception in 1978. In 2004, since NPS was about to begin a new GMP for
the park, NPS decided to include National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance related to hunting in that document. As part of the
NEPA compliance. NPS is considering alternatives for hunting within the
park. Three of the action alternatives would continue or enhance
hunting in the park, and one is a no hunting'' alternative. NPS has
determined that the ``no hunting'' alternative must be included in the
plan in some form to ensure that the requirements of NEPA are
adequately met. When the draft GMP is released for public review, it
will include a preferred alternative stating the NPS' position on
continued hunting at New River Gorge.
ON S. 3158
Question 23a. When was the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory
Commission first authorized and why is this reauthorization necessary?
Answer. The Commission was first authorized in 1961 when the park
was established. The Commission is an important partner to the park,
providing information on issues related to private land ownership and
occupancy, and on management of recreational activities.
Question 23b. How many members are on the Cape Cod National
Seashore Advisory Commission, how long a term do they serve, and how
frequently do they meet?
Answer. There are 10 members, appointed by the Secretary, who serve
for a two-year term. The Commission meets five to six times a year.
Question 23c. How many national park units currently have an
advisory commission/board and how long do such commissions generally
remain in existence once formed?
Answer. There are 20 currently authorized federal advisory
commissions for national park units, and several more that are
associated with the National Park Service but not a specific park unit.
As indicated by the list below, many of have an indefinite
authorization, while others have a termination date. Some are
established to provide advice on a range of issues; other for a very
specific purpose. Advisory commissions established for general purposes
for units of the National Park System are often authorized by Congress
for an initial ten-year period and later extended for an additional
period of time.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
Commissions with no termination dates
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory
Council
Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road Vehicle Advisory
Commission
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove Nation Historical Park
Advisory Commission
Committee for the Preservation of the White House
Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission
Jimmy Carter National Historic Site Advisory Commission
National Park of American Samoa Advisory Board
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Review Committee
NPS Subsistence Resource Commission--Aniakchak National
Monument
NPS Subsistence Resource Commission--Denali National
Park
NPS Subsistence Resource Commission--Gates of the
Arctic
NPS Subsistence Resource Commission--Cape Krusenstern
National Monument
NPS Subsistence Resource Commission--Kobuk Valley
National Park
NPS Subsistence Resource Commission--Lake Clark
National Park
NPS Subsistence Resource Commission--Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park
Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic
Site Advisory Commission
Preservation Technology Training Board
Tall Grass Prairie National Preserve Advisory Committee
Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee
Commissions with termination dates Termination date
Acadia National Park Advisory Commission Sept. 25, 2026
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail May 21, 2018
Advisory Council
Chesapeake and Ohio National Historical Park Jan. 8, 2011
Commission
Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Sept. 21, 2013
Overflights Advisory Council
Flight 93 Advisory Commission Completion of monument
NPS Concessions Management Advisory Board Dec. 31, 2008
Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail Advisory Dec. 14, 2008
Council
Route 66 Corridor Preservation Advisory Committee Aug. 10, 2009
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Off-Road Jan. 2, 2010
Vehicle Management at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore
Commissions with expired authorizations/legislation
pending to reauthorize Termination date
Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission Sept. 26, 2008
Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Oct. 31, 2008
Commission
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Advisory Nov. 12, 2006
Commission
Responses of Derb S. Carter, Jr., to Questions From Senator Burr
ON S. 3113
Question 1. How was the interim management plan deficient and why
was it necessary to develop a court-approved agreement?
Answer. As more fully explained in the Amended Complaint in the
federal lawsuit entitled Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. National Park
Service et al.,\1\ the Interim Plan failed to meet the National Park
Service's obligation pursuant to Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and
36 C.F.R. Sec. 4.10. These executive orders and the regulation require
the National Park Service to adopt a special regulation to manage off-
road vehicle use on the Seashore and protect natural resources from the
adverse impacts of off-road vehicle use. Further, the Interim Plan
violated the National Park Service Organic Act ,\2\ the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore enabling legislation,\3\ the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act,\4\ and the Endangered Species Act\5\ because it failed to protect
the wildlife of the Seashore. Its primary weaknesses included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Case number 2:07-CV-45-BO (U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern Dist.
of N.C.).
\2\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq.
\3\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 459-459a-10.
\4\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 703-712.
\5\ 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.
Initiating pre-nesting closures on April 1, rather than
March 15, increasing the level of disturbance for birds seeking
to establish territories and court mates.
Limiting monitoring for territorial and breeding behavior.
The frequency of monitoring under the Interim Plan was not
sufficient because it allowed significant time periods to pass
between observations, ensuring that territorial and breeding
behavior would not be observed by Park staff and that buffers
would not be implemented to protect breeding birds.
Establishing disturbance buffers that were too small, had no
scientific basis, and did not meet the minimum recommendations
of the USGS scientists. Adequate buffers are vital to bird
courtship, breeding, nesting, and chick rearing.
Granting substantial discretion to the National Park Service
to decrease protections for wildlife. In previous years, Park
Service exercise of this discretion has consistently favored
ORV use over resource protection, putting wildlife in harm's
way. As Steve Harrison, former Chief of Resource Management at
Cape Hatteras National Seashore, explained in his sworn
declaration, ``during my tenure as Chief of Resource Management
at the Seashore, protection of birds and other natural
resources was often compromised by Seashore management to
accommodate ORV use and ORV user groups.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Declaration of Steven Harrison, filed in Defenders of Wildlife,
et al. v. National Park Service, et al., 19 (Jan. 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failing to impose any restrictions specifically on night
driving, which can disturb nesting sea turtles.
Because of these deficiencies, and the Interim Plan's express
reliance on previous management strategies, it was clear that the
wildlife population declines observed over the last decade at the
Seashore would continue under the Interim Plan. Specifically, experts
on the species managed under the Interim Plan stated that:
``[T]he 2007 Interim Plan will not provide for the recovery
of the piping plover population at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, and does not acceptably reduce the risk of human-
caused injury or mortality to nests or chicks.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Cohen, filed in Defenders of
Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, et al., 9 (Dec. 12, 2007).
Dr. Cohen was the piping plover expert hired by the United States
Geological Survey to provide proposed management plans for Cape
Hatteras National Seashore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Under the 2007 Interim Plan, there is a risk that there
will not be a viable piping plover population in place when the
long-term ORV management plan is enacted.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``[T]he 2007 Interim Plan is inadequate in its ability to
provide the type of protection required by piping plovers and
colonial ground nesting waterbirds at CAHA.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Declaration of Dr. Francesca Cuthbert, filed in Defenders of
Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, et al., 8 (Dec. 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Without adoption of management at the highest level of
protection it is likely that piping plovers and the other
shoreline inhabiting waterbird species will not continue to
breed at Cape Hatteras for much longer in the future.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``[T]he 2007 Interim Plan is inadequate for protecting
Piping Plovers and their eggs and chicks from disturbance or
direct mortality caused by recreational activities, especially
ORVs.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Declaration of Scott Melvin, filed in Defenders of Wildlife,
et al. v. National Park Service, et al., 18 (Jan. 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Failure to implement more effective protection, beginning
with the 2008 breeding season, will continue to impede progress
toward recovery of this local population, and will not reduce
the current risk that breeding Piping Plovers will be
extirpated from the Seashore.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If current management practices continue for the next two
to three years, piping plovers will most likely disappear as a
breeding species from Cape Hatteras entirely and the
populations of colonially nesting waterbirds and American
oystercatchers will be drastically reduced if not also
eliminated.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Declaration of Dr. Erica Nol, filed in Defenders of Wildlife,
et al. v. National Park Service, et al., 19 (Dec. 18, 2007).
It was necessary to develop the Consent Decree to address these
shortcomings of the Interim Plan, to prevent the loss of additional
native species from the Seashore before a final ORV management plan is
approved, and to ensure that a final management plan is adopted by
creating an enforceable timetable for its development. In 2007, both
gull-billed terns and black skimmers failed to nest on the Seashore
beaches. The scientific evidence available indicated that several other
species risked being eliminated from the Seashore under the Interim
Plan. The Consent Decree corrects these faults by using a
scientifically supported foundation for the protection of species. The
extensive input from Dare County, Hyde County, and the Cape Hatteras
Access Preservation Alliance in crafting the Consent Decree ensured
that, even with this scientific basis, the Consent Decree appropriately
considers all uses of the Seashore and accommodates those uses.
Question 2. Cape Hatteras National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle Use
(S.3113): Has there been any increase in beach traffic in other areas
of the park or adjacent beaches since the court-approved agreement has
been followed?
Answer. The National Park Service is in the best position to answer
this question. We understand that the Park Service is keeping track of
the numbers of visitors to Cape Hatteras National Seashore generally as
well as the number of ORVs driving on its beaches at certain locations,
but we are not aware of any place that it has regularly published
either those numbers or a breakdown of how many vehicles are using each
section of beach. There has been little to no decrease in the numbers
of ORVs using the beaches in general, and that there has been at least
an occasional increase in the total number of vehicles on the
Seashore.\14\ As we previously testified, the Park Service reported
that 2,557 vehicles were on Seashore beaches on the July 4th, 2008,
holiday,\15\ whereas the busiest holiday weekends in previous years
reportedly approached only 2,200 vehicles.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Irene Nolan, New dispatches from the beachfront: Access
update, getting smart about beach driving, manners and laws, and July 4
report, ISLAND FREE PRESS, http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/
07.11.2008-ShootingTheBreezeNewDispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html.
\15\ Id.
\16\ Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for an Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (ORV
Management Plan) for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC, 71 Fed. Reg.
71552 (Dec. 11, 2006)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The noteworthy fact regarding the location of beach driving is that
beach driving has been managed in such a way as to keep ORVs away from
areas only as long as necessary to ensure the success of wildlife
breeding by allowing safe courting, breeding, nesting, hatching, and
fledging.
Question 3. Is your organization concerned about threatened and
endangered species in other public beaches in the Outer Banks? Are you
aware of any plans for additional legal action?
Answer. National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, The
Wilderness Society, and the Southern Environmental Law Center are all
concerned about the welfare of threatened and endangered species
wherever they may live and breed. We are aware that populations of
threatened and endangered species, including many of the same species
as those that live on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, live elsewhere
in North Carolina's Outer Banks, including on Cape Lookout National
Seashore. We have focused our attention on those populations living in
Cape Hatteras National Seashore because those populations were
suffering the greatest declines and because, according to the
government's own scientists and the applicable federal laws, there was
an obvious mechanism for the Park to protect the species and reverse
the declines. That mechanism has been memorialized in the Consent
Decree.
Regarding other litigation, we aware of a lawsuit entitled Friends
of the Earth et al. v. United States Department of the Interior, case
number 05 CV 2302 (RCL),\17\ which was brought in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia in 2005. The groups that I represent
were not party to that lawsuit. Dare County, Hyde County, and the Cape
Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance were, however, intervenors in
that lawsuit, in much the same posture as in the case involving Cape
Hatteras. That case involved the National Park Service's duty to manage
off-road driving at other national parks and seashores, including Cape
Lookout. We understand that a settlement has been reached in that case.
We also understand that Dare County, Hyde County, and the Cape Hatteras
Access Preservation Alliance, represented by some of the same lawyers
as in the Cape Hatteras case, informed the court that they did not
object to that settlement.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Press Release, National Parks Conservation Association,
Conservation Groups Settle Lawsuit with National Park Service,
Protection National Parks from Illegal Off-Road Vehicle Use (May 22,
2008) available at http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/
2008/orv_052208.html.
\18\ Notice of Settlement, filed in Friends of the Earth, et al. v.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, et al., (May 01, 2008); Joint Motion for
Entry of Judgment, filed in Friends of the Earth, et al. v. U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, et al., (May 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding future litigation, we have no current plans to initiate
litigation regarding protection of endangered and threatened species
from ORVs in other areas of the Outer Banks. We are aware, however,
that the District of Columbia federal district court has retained
jurisdiction over litigation initiated by Dare County, Hyde County, and
the Cape Hatteras Preservation Alliance, through which they challenged
the designation of critical habitat for wintering piping plovers on
Cape Hatteras National Seashore, requiring status updates from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.\19\ Warren Judge, Chairman of the Dare
County Board of Commissioners, has indicated that the county may
challenge the Fish and Wildlife Service's recent re-designation of
critical habitat.\20\ We are also aware that ORV interest groups have
indicated an ongoing commitment to using litigation as a means to
address their dissatisfaction with beach driving limits at Cape
Hatteras.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Dep't of
the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108, 136-37 (D.D.C. 2004). See Federal
Defendants' Second Status Report on Progress on Remand, filed Dec. 20,
2007.
\20\ The minutes of the May 19, 2008 Dare County Board of
Commissioners' meeting state that Warren Judge commented that the
county ``will have to revisit the issue in court.'' The Dare County
Board of Commissioners' Minutes: May 19, 2008, available at http://
www.co.dare.nc.us/BOC/Minutes/2008/OM051908.pdf.
\21\ http://www.ncbba.org/legalfund.html (stating, ``The North
Carolina Beach Buggy Association needs help now, more than ever, to
fund the legal battles we are facing now and will face in the immediate
future. We are committed to free and open access to the beaches of Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.''); http://
capehatterasapa.org/forum/forum--topics.asp?FID=8 (showing Cape
Hatteras Preservation Alliance's ongoing efforts to raise legal funds,
and stating, ``There are several pro-active projects that CHAPA is
working on and I will share more with you, when they are ready for
announcement, but these things take funds to be able to do.''); http://
www.capehatterasanglersclub.org/index.php?option=com--
content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=46 (stating, ``The purpose of [the Cape
Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance] is to provide a venue through
which OBPA can join with other like-minded user groups to preserve and
defend through negotiation or litigation against any effort by any
person, group, organization, or government agency to ban or restrict
vehicular or other access to the beaches (ocean and sound side) of the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. In your testimony you state: ``By the last week in
July, piping plovers had increased from 6 breeding pairs in 2007 to 11
pairs in 2008, an 83% increase for this threatened species. Fledged
piping plover chicks nearly doubled from 4 to 7 during the same period,
the highest number of fledged piping plover chicks on the Seashore
since 1998.'' The consent decree was approved by the court on April 30,
2008. (i) When did the piping plover breeding season begin in 2008 and
when does it end? (ii) How long is the incubation period for the piping
plover and how many clutches does a nesting pair produce per year?
(iii) How long from the time of hatching does it take for a piping
plover to become reproductively viable? (iv) How can you be certain
that an increase in piping plovers is the result of the consent decree
when a complete reproductive season has not occurred under the decree;
is it possible that more birds than usual survived the winter and were
available to nest in 2008 for reasons unrelated to the consent decree?
Answer. (i) It is difficult to definitively state when the piping
plover season began and ended. The first documented closure for
breeding piping plovers, other than pre-nesting closures, was announced
on May 5.\22\ The last piping plover chick fledged on July 15.\23\ The
last remaining nest failed on July 20, 2008.\24\ This span approximates
the generally accepted breeding season for piping plovers, which
typically begins in March and runs through mid-August.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Press Release, Outer Banks Group, National Park Service, NPS
Announces First Major Closures under the Consent Decree (May 5, 2008).
\23\ OUTER BANKS GROUP, CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY; JULY 17 TO JULY 23, 2008 (BODIE
ISLAND, HATTERAS, AND OCRACOKE DISTRICTS) at 1 (2008).
\24\ Id.
\25\ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROTOCOLS
FOR THE THREATENED PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) ON CAPE HATTERAS
NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA 4 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Piping plover incubation ranges from 25-29 days.\26\ A pair
may re-nest multiple times if previous clutches are destroyed, but
rarely do so after chicks hatch.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. 4.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Piping plovers have been known to breed as young as one year
of age, but the frequency at which they do so is unknown.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS
MELODUS) ATLANTIC COAST POPULATION REVISED RECOVERY PLAN 5 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) A range of factors can influence breeding success including
habitat availability, weather conditions, predation, and human
disturbance. At the Seashore, the National Park Service is implementing
management strategies to address predators and human disturbance. While
there is no way to be sure that the Consent Decree is the sole reason
for this year's breeding success for piping plovers, the success of
piping plovers, American oystercatchers, sea turtles, and other species
is not unexpected. The Consent Decree is based primarily on the
``moderate protection'' protocols created by USGS scientists and
recommended to the National Park Service. Those scientists predicted
that implementing the ``moderate protection'' protocols would decrease
the disturbance of target species on the Seashore. While it is too
early to make a final judgment on the effectiveness of the Consent
Decree, that decreased disturbance may be responsible for the improved
results from this year's breeding season.
Survival rates of wintering plovers could affect the number of
breeding pairs of piping plovers on the Seashore, but we are not aware
of any evidence demonstrating that the survival rate of wintering birds
leading into this breeding season was higher than normal. Further, if
winter survival is responsible for the 83% increase in breeding pairs
of piping plovers on Cape Hatteras Seashore, one would expect to see
similar increases in the southern population of piping plovers at other
locations. However, based on preliminary monitoring, the number of
breeding pairs at nearby Cape Lookout National Seashore merely remained
essentially the same, with 45 breeding pairs in 2007 and approximately
45-46 breeding pairs in 2008.
______
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Wyden, on S. 3148
Question 1. The Park Service has been proposing expanding the
boundary of the Oregon Caves Monument since the 1930's, and, as you
noted in your testimony, the original withdrawal proposal envisioned a
larger Monument, but in the Forest Service testimony isn't this
Administration reversing decades of policy by its unprecedented
criticism of efforts to create an expanded boundary for the Oregon
Caves monument?
Answer. The Presidential Proclamation (No. 876, July 12, 1909)
designating the Oregon Caves National Monument identified an area of
approximately 480 acres of the Siskiyou National Forest to be managed
as a national monument. This area was managed initially by the Forest
Service and since 1933; it has been managed by the National Park
Service. Since 1933, the Forest Service has worked closely with the
National Park Service to ensure that management of the surrounding
national forest lands is compatible with management objectives for the
monument. Watershed protection, enhanced recreation opportunities, fire
suppression and hazardous fuels management are some of the more
important areas in which we have mutual interests with the National
Park Service.
In 1985, the National Park Service inquired about the possibility
of transferring the management and operations responsibilities for the
Oregon Caves National Monument to the Siskiyou National Forest. At that
time, a joint team of both agencies addressed the issues. Following
those discussions, the National Park Service reorganized to have the
Oregon Caves National Monument manager report to the manager at Crater
Lake National Park.
Forest Service staff provided comments on the draft environmental
impact statement associated with 1998 Oregon Caves Management Plan that
recommended enlarging the monument. At that time, staffs from both
agencies exchanged correspondence and consulted on a number of topics
related to the monument plan and mutual objectives for managing the
monument and the surrounding national forest.
The Forest Service continues to be cooperative with and supportive
of the Superintendent and staff at the Oregon Caves National Monument.
The recent Forest Service testimony is aligned with a longstanding
policy of intergovernmental cooperation, including the agreement and
conservation policy established January 31, 1963, between the
Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department
of Interior (DOI).
Question 2. The Forest Service was provided an opportunity to
comment and did in fact provide comments to the 1999 General Management
Plan. I have reviewed some of the correspondence submitted providing
those comments and notes of actions the National Park Service undertook
to be responsive to those comments. Why doesn't that constitute
adequate interagency consultation?
Answer. The planning process for the Monument's General Management
Plan was conducted by the National Park Service. During that process,
the Forest Service and the National Park Service staffs discussed a
number of topics related to the proposed management plan. The topic of
changing lands status to enlarge the monument did not evolve to the
point where the agencies conducted a joint study with public
participation to fully consider of the feasibility of transferring
lands from the Forest Service to the Park Service administration. To
date, there has been no joint study of this proposal employing a
process as envisioned and directed by the 1963 agreement between the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. If a change to land status
is to be considered, joint studies, fully open to public participation
are the rule since the 1963 agreement. Longstanding direction has been
for mutual support and cooperation in management of lands under each
jurisdiction. The Forest Service is committed to cooperative and
mutually supportive management across jurisdictions.
Question 3. Can you provide a complete file of all comments the
Forest Service submitted to the National Park Service for the 1998
General Management Plan?
Answer. The Forest Service comments on the draft environmental
impact statement related to the Oregon Caves National Monument General
Management Plan are attached in Exhibit 1.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibits 1-5 have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. Can you provide a complete file of all comments the
Forest Service submitted to the National Park Service regarding
transfer of land to the National Park Service?
Answer. The Forest Service comments regarding proposed boundary
changes to the Monument are included in the attached Forest Service
comments on the draft environmental impact statement related to the
Oregon Caves National Monument General Management Plan. See Exhibit 1.
Question 5. Can you provide further explanation and documentation
on the agency policy the Forest Service testimony cites regarding
unilateral agency proposals?
Answer. The nearly half-century policy of USDA and DOI to avoid
unilateral proposals to change the status of lands dates back to a
joint USDA and DOI letter on ``Jurisdictional Responsibilities in
Managing Public Recreational Areas'' sent to and endorsed by the
President on January of 1963. See Exhibit 2.
Agencies may have different resource and recreation management
objectives that lead them to emphasize different types of public
recreation or adapt different techniques for resource protection. When
one agency develops a management plan solely around its objectives, its
management activities can disrupt patterns of legitimate recreational
use, create additional management expenses, and even put certain
resources at risk by affecting patterns of human use or natural
processes. The USDA and DOI have long adhered to the 1963 agreement to
ensure that neither inadvertently interferes with the other's mission
and objectives for protecting natural resources and providing a wide
range of recreational opportunities and public uses of federal lands.
Question 6. Over the years, I have heard a number of examples where
there has been less than stellar interagency coordination and agreement
on protecting the monument resources. There are a number of examples I
have heard, including the Forest Service clear cutting right up to the
Monument boundary--in the late 1980s a road collapse associated with a
culvert in a clear-cut in the Lake Creek watershed caused the National
Park Service to shut down the public water supply because the turbidity
was so high that they couldn't treat it.
And it appears there has been a long history of National Park
Service concern about grazing and in response the Forest Service
increased the grazing. The Forest Service even closed the gate on the
park to block access to the forest because of the controversial
Sugarloaf timber sale.
These examples seem to illustrate a failure of cooperation and
protection of the Monument's resources. Can you detail and provide
evidence of any special measures the US Forest Service has undertaken
to further protect the natural resources and water supply of the Oregon
Caves National Monument?
Answer. Forest Service personnel have worked closely with the
Oregon Caves National Monument staff on a wide variety of natural
resource and administrative issues over the years and coordinated on
activities that have been of mutual interest to the public, the Forest
Service and the National Park Service.
There is a Memorandum of Understanding for Fire Suppression and
Mutual Aid: The Forest Service will aggressively respond to wildfire
threats with coordinated suppression activities on the Monument. The
local Forest Service District initial attack forces include two
suppression engines, an 18 person helitack crew, and a type 2
helicopter. As needed, air tankers, smokejumpers, and additional fire
resources are made available including foam capability for structure
protection. This is especially important due to significant risks
associated with only one access route to the Monument and a high
loading of hazardous fuels in this area due to lower than natural fire
recurrence.
The Wild Rivers Ranger District stores the Park Service fire
suppression engine in a covered facility and maintains the Park Service
suppression engine at no expense during the off-season.
In support of the Oregon Caves administrative needs, the Forest
Service has permitted the building of communications equipment and
facilities on national forest lands to facilitate the operation of the
Oregon Caves Monument. During the past year, the Forest Service has
provided the Monument employees unlimited access to the facilities at
the Wild Rivers District Compound to facilitate phone and communication
services during a time when the Monument experienced a failure in phone
and computer services. Office space, computer access, and phone service
was willingly provided for eight months without any fees being charged.
No clear cutting has occurred in the vicinity of the Monument
boundary since the mid 1980's and none are planned. In regards to the
``late 1980's road collapse associated with a culvert in a clear-cut in
the Lake Creek watershed,'' there was a culvert failure and subsequent
road fill slope failure on Forest Service Road 070 in 1997 when severe
winter storms caused widespread flooding in Southwest Oregon. This
culvert failure was not associated with a clear-cut, but was, however,
directly below a high elevation natural meadow. In response to this
culvert failure, the Forest Service closed and decommissioned a portion
of this road which is located just outside the Monument's present
boundary to prevent further risk of road failure and subsequent
sedimentation. It should be noted that this action was consistent with
the specific action described in the Oregon Caves National Monument
General Management Plan (August 1999, page 20, action item 15).
The National Park Service and the Forest Service have had concerns
about grazing in the Lake Creek watershed above the Monument's water
intake. For a variety of natural resource related reasons, the Forest
Service has reduced the number of permitted cattle in the Big Grayback
Allotment from 200 head in 1937 to 70 permitted head of cattle in 2008.
The new Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan that will be implemented
in 2009 calls for 56 permitted head of cattle for the allotment.
The current staff on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is
not aware of the specific details regarding the gate closure on the
Monument to prevent access to the Sugarloaf Timber Sale area. However,
coordination with the Monument staff to close this gate to maintain
public safety in response to timber sale protest activity would have
been consistent with Forest Service public safety policies in place at
that time.
The Forest Service manages the lands surrounding the Oregon Caves
National Monument to meet or exceed Oregon surface water standards. The
Forest Service has undertaken and will continue to undertake a variety
of special measures to further protect the natural resources and water
supply of the Oregon Caves National Monument. Current special measures
include protecting the Oregon Caves National Monument public water
supply by excluding a 150 foot radius around the water intake from
livestock grazing, reducing the numbers of permitted livestock use from
70 head to 56 head, reducing the livestock forage utilization levels in
areas adjacent to the Oregon Caves National Monument (Bigelow Lakes
Area), and authorizing the construction of a fence to prevent livestock
from reaching the Bigelow Lakes area. These specific actions are fully
described in the Environmental Assessment for the Big Grayback
Allotment Management Plan (October 2007) and the Decision Notice and
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Big Grayback Allotment
Management Plan (February 2008), and will be implemented as soon as a
final decision is made pending resolution of an appeal by the permit
holder. These documents can be accessed at the following internet site:
www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/planning/big-grayback-
ea.shtml.
In addition, the Forest Service will continue to maintain the
closure of Forest Service Road 070 consistent with the Oregon Caves
National Monument General Management Plan (August 1999).
Question 7. Can you provide me a copy of all the correspondence
between the National Park Service and the Forest Service regarding the
potential contamination of the Caves' drinking water supply from
grazing?
Answer. Enclosed in Exhibit 3 is official correspondence between
the National Park Service and the Forest Service regarding the
potential contamination of the Oregon Caves National Monument drinking
water supply from grazing. The Forest Service manages the watershed to
meet in-stream state water quality standards. The Monument has obtained
permits from the State of Oregon granting approval for appropriation of
surface water through construction of the diversion on Lake Creek for
purposes of ``domestic, hotel, and fire protection'' and is responsible
for treating the water to state drinking water standards.
Question 8. Can you please provide notices of violations issued on
the Big Grayback Allotment?
Answer. Attached are notices of violations and related documents
correspondence on the Big Grayback Allotment. Please see Exhibit 4.
Question 9. Can you please provide the Resource Management Plan
direction on grazing in Research Natural Areas and Botanical Areas in
the Big Grayback Allotment
Answer. The Big Grayback allotment on the Rogue River-Siskiyou
National Forest encompasses portions of the former Rogue River and
Siskiyou National Forests. Prior to consolidation, both the Rogue River
and Siskiyou National Forest completed their respective Land and
Resource Management Plans. These plans provide the following direction
for range management in Research Natural Areas and Botanical Areas:
Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for
Range Management in Research Natural Areas
There are no Research Natural Areas within that portion of
the Big Grayback Allotment located on the former Siskiyou
National Forest.
Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for
Range Management in Botanical Areas
1. Livestock grazing shall be prohibited in Botanical Areas,
except where such use is part of an existing allotment. Bigelow
Lakes is the only recommended Botanical Area with an existing
grazing allotment (Big Grayback Allotment, administered by the
Applegate Ranger District of the Rogue River National Forest.)
Cattle shall be prevented from reaching the Lakes area by a
drift fence. The effects of grazing in the Bigelow Lakes basin
shall be monitored and corrective action taken as necessary.
Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for
Range Management in Research Natural Areas
1. Grazing may be allowed when the Director of the Forest and
Range Experiment Station authorizes such a management practice
as essential to maintain a specific vegetation type.
2. Where Research Natural Areas are located adjacent to or
within grazing allotments, the boundaries will be marked and
physical barriers constructed around the area to prohibit
livestock entry, if needed.
3. Write range allotment plans to reflect management
direction for all lands within the allotment boundary.
Allotment planning procedures are documented in FSM 2210.
4. Develop Coordinated Resource Management Plans where
possible and feasible to facilitate integrated resource
management of range arid other resources, and between agencies,
permittees and offer other landowners.
Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for
Range Management in Botanical Areas
1. Livestock grazing will be controlled in order to benefit
or maintain the botanical resource. This control can range from
limited or no livestock grazing to seasonal adjustments to
benefit target species. Forage utilization standards will be
based on this direction.
2. Range improvements and vegetative manipulation will not be
permitted unless they will benefit the botanical resource. No
exotic species will be seeded or placed in botanical areas.
3. Provide fences and stock control devices when necessary to
protect resource.
4. Provide annual permittee plans for livestock distribution
and use patterns which reflect management direction.
5. Write range allotment plans to reflect management
direction for all lands within the allotment boundary.
Allotment planning procedures are documented in FSM 2210.
6. Develop Coordinated Resource Management Plans where
possible and feasible to facilitate integrated resource
management of range and other resources, and between agencies,
permittees and other landowners.
All current grazing management on the Big Grayback Allotment
conforms to this Land and Resource Management Plan direction. New
grazing management as described in the Environmental Assessment,
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Big
Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update will also conform to this
Land and Resource Management Plan direction.
Question 10. Forest Service testimony cites concerns about fuel
management and forest restoration, but my bill specifically includes
language providing for forest management and the recent fires have
illustrated the Park Service's capabilities in managing for fire. What
are the specific concerns about the National Park Service's ability to
perform fuel treatments and forest restoration?
Answer. The forest restoration and fuel treatment activities
referenced in the Forest Service testimony that are planned for the
4,070 acres identified in S. 3148 are the result of a well-coordinated,
multiyear planning effort involving local communities, governments, and
interest groups as well as interagency coordination. As a result of
these investments in planning and public involvement, the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest is now positioned to implement work that will
achieve the forest restoration aims of S. 3148 as described in Section
6(b).
We fully support the need to conduct ecological forest restoration
activities within the 4,070 acres identified in S. 3148 and believe
that these fuel treatment and forest restoration activities can move
forward in the most expedient fashion if these lands are maintained
within the National Forest System. The longstanding involvement and
familiarity of Forest Service personnel working on the forest and
within the Pacific Northwest Region will ensure that the recreational
values associated with these lands are provided for and ecological
forest restoration goals are achieved in an efficient and effective
manner.
Question 11. You discussed in your testimony that you have planned
restoration and fuels reduction projects. Can you tell us what the
priority of those thinning projects in the Rogue River Siskiyou
National Forest is, what percentage of those projects has been
completed and whether all funding has been secured to complete those
projects?
Answer. The Forest Service has placed the highest priority on the
restoration and fuels reduction projects planned for this area because
they are within the wildland urban interface (WUI) and adjacent to the
Oregon Caves National Monument. They are the highest priority for
treatment on the Wild Rivers Ranger District as evidenced by the
completion of NEPA planning efforts and ongoing implementation.
Approximately 142 acres have already been implemented. An
additional 236 acres have NEPA planning completed with expectations of
field implementation within the next five years (funding dependent);
and 1550 more acres are planned for NEPA and field implementation over
the next five or more years. These projects are thinning in lands
clear-cut over 30 years ago. These are stewardship projects, and the
proceeds will help fund additional fuel reduction efforts.
Question 12. Can you identify where significant amount of hunting
occurs with in the lands proposed for transfer to the National Park
Service?
Answer. The proposed expansion area is a favorite location for many
local hunters and is traditionally used as a primary hunting
opportunity for black-tailed deer and black bear. Hunting is generally
dispersed throughout the proposed expansion area with concentrated use
occurring along open ridge tops, meadows, and other unique wildlife
habitat features. In addition, hunting is also concentrated in areas
that are accessible by hiking along trails and roadways that are no
longer open to motorized vehicles.
Question 13. Could you produce a map delineating these principal
areas where hunting is more concentrated and where users would be most
impacted?
Answer. Yes, the Forest Service can provide a fairly accurate map
of these features, as indicators of areas where hunting would likely be
more concentrated using our GIS capabilities together with aerial
photographs, and local expertise within 7-10 days of a request.
Question 14 Is the 1907 withdrawal of Monument lands still in
effect? Can you please provide a copy of the withdrawal document with a
citation of where to locate it? Can you provide a map indicating the
extent of the withdrawal?
Answer. The Monument was withdrawn in 1907 by Secretarial Order,
and then by Presidential Proclamation 876 of July 12, 1909, under the
authority of the Antiquities Act. A copy of the proclamation and
associated plat is in the attached Exhibit 5.
A ``buffer'' was withdrawn on 12/3/1963 by administrative
withdrawal, which is still in effect (based on the Master Title Plat).
It can be found on Public Land Order 3286, which gives a Federal
Register citation of 28 FR 13308 (which was corrected by 29 FR 3010)
Link to the Master Title Plat: http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/or/
400s060wm01.pdf.
Link to the Historical Index lists all land actions by the Federal
Government for Township 40 South, Range 6 West, containing the
Monument: http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/or/400s060whwd.pdf.
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 15. How much of the expansion area is currently covered by
grazing permits, how many permit-holders are involved, and how many
AUMs are involved?
Answer. The proposed expansion area would include approximately
1,263 acres of the Big Grayback Allotment that is currently under a
grazing permit. There is one permit holder and the current permitted
cattle use on the Big Grayback Allotment is 70 head between June 1 and
September 30 for a total of 280 animal use months (AUMs) authorized for
the entire Big Grayback Allotment. The new Big Grayback Allotment
Management Plan that will be implemented in 2009 calls for 56 permitted
head of cattle for the allotment.
Question 16. How do the procedures for managing grazing on US
Forest Service land differ from the procedures on National Park Service
land?
Answer. Pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest Service is authorized to develop,
administer, and protect range resources, and permit and regulate
grazing use of all kinds and classes of livestock on all National
Forest System (NFS) lands and on other lands under Forest Service
control. This authority extends to the national forests, national
grasslands, and other lands administered by the Forest Service through
lease, agreement, waiver or otherwise.
We defer to the Department of the Interior to provide specifics,
but it is our understanding that National Park Service policies
prohibit grazing except 1) as specifically authorized by statute; or 2)
as required by a reservation of use right arising from the acquisition
of a tract of land; or 3) as required in order to maintain a historical
scene; or 4) as carried out as part of a living exhibit or interpretive
demonstration; or 5) used to achieve resource conditions as part of a
management plan. Grazing is only allowed where it does not cause
unacceptable impacts on park resources and values.
The following information details the Statutory Authorities,
Regulatory Authorities, Secretary of Agriculture Administrative Orders,
Forest Service Policy for Range Management on National Forest System
Lands AND Forest Service Objectives for Range Management on National
Forest System Lands.
AUTHORITIES
Statutory Authorities
Authority to protect, manage, and administer the National Forest
System, and other lands under Forest Service administration for range
management purposes, emanates from the following acts:
1. Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (Ch. 2, 30
Stat. 34, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 551).
2. Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, Title III, of July 22,
1937, Sections 31-33 (Ch. 517, 50 Stat. 525, as amended; 7
U.S.C. 1010-1012).
3. Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950, Sections 1,5, 7. 11,
12, 18, 19, (Ch. 97, 64 Stat. 82; 16 U.S.C. 571c; 16 U.S.C.
572; 16 U.S.C. 580d; 16 U.S.C. 580g; 580h; 16 U.S.C. 580k; 16
U.S.C. 580).
4. Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L.
86-517, 74 Stat. 215, 16 U.S.C. 528-531).
5. Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, Section 4 (P.L. 88-
577, 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1133).
6. National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970 (P.L.
91-190, 83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 (note), 4321, 4331-4335,
4341-4347).
7. Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act of December 15, 1971
(P.L. 92-195, 85 Stat. 649, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1331-1340).
8. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
August 17, 1974 (P.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 476, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 1601 (note), 1600-1614).
9. National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976 (P.L.
94-588, 90 Stat. 2949, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 472a, 476, 500,
513-516, 518, 521b, 528 (note), 576b, 594-2 (note), 1600
(note), 1601 (note), 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614).
10. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21,
1976, Sections 206, 310, 401, 402, 403, 404, (P.L. 94-579, 90
Stat. 2743, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1716; 43 U.S.C. 1740; 43
U.S.C. 1751; 43 U.S.C. 1752; 43 U.S.C. 1753).
11. Public Rangelands Improvement Act of October 25, 1978 (92
Stat. 1803, 43 U.S.C. 1752-1753, 1901-1908).
Regulatory Authorities
Regulations relating to the range program which confer authority to
the Chief Forest Service are:
1. Grazing and Livestock Use on the National Forest System,
36 CFR Part 222, Subpart A.
2. Management of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros, 36 CFR
Part 222, Subpart B.
3. Grazing Fees, 36 CFR Part 222, Subpart C.
4. Administration of Lands Under Title III of the Bankhead-
Jones Farm Tenant Act by the Forest Service 36 CFR 213.
5. General Prohibition, 36 CFR 261, Subpart A.
6. Administrative Review Procedures, 36 CFR 251.80, Subpart
C.
7. Wilderness-Primitive Areas, 36 CFR 292.7.
Secretary of Agriculture Administrative Orders
The Secretary of Agriculture sets forth responsibilities mandated
by statutory authority through Departmental regulations and
memorandums. Policy relating to range resources and coordination of
range activities of the USDA agencies and other executive agencies,
organizations, and individuals is included in the following:
1. Secretary's Administrative Order of August 1963,
Administration of Lands Under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones
Farm Tenant Act; Establishment of National Grasslands.
2. Departmental Regulation, Number 9500-5, dated April 21,
1988; Subject: Policy on Range.
POLICY
National Forest System
Basic policies for range management on National Forests and
National Grasslands are to:
1. Use appropriate methods, such as grazing use by livestock
or wild ungulates, prescribed fire, and mechanical or chemical
treatments, for managing range vegetation.
2. Identify and inventory range resource values, including
riparian, upland, and other critical areas to determine which
areas meet or do not meet Forest land and resource management
plan objectives.
3. Implement and monitor measures to restore and enhance
plant diversity and productivity, water quality, and soil
stability.
4. Enhance or maintain the habitat of threatened, endangered
or sensitive species of plants and animals.
5. Determine suitability and potential capability for
producing forage for grazing and browsing animals and for
maintaining and enhancing habitat for fish and wildlife
Management Indicator Species.
6. Consistent with Forest land and resource management plans,
make forage available to qualified livestock operators from
lands that are suitable for livestock grazing.
7. Issue term permits, generally for ten-year periods with
appropriate terms and conditions, to allow use of range
vegetation and promote stability for livestock enterprises.
8. Coordinate, cooperate and consult with grazing permittees
and grazing associations, and other interested parties in the
development of allotment management plans.
9. Emphasize permittee and association responsibility and
accountability for meeting terms and conditions of permits,
allotment management plans, and annual operating instructions.
10. Recover administrative costs of permit transactions
initiated by the permittee.
11. Manage wild free-roaming horse and burro populations in a
thriving ecological balance within established territories.
12. Manage noxious weeds, using integrated pest management
techniques in close coordination and cooperation with adjacent
landowners and agencies.
13. Use cost effectiveness in range vegetation management.
14. Optimize involvement of expertise within the Forest
Service, from other agencies, organizations, permittees, and
others in range vegetation management.
15. Integrate range management and resolve oonflicts through
Coordinated Resource Management by promoting voluntary
cooperation among agencies, groups and individuals responsible
for range resources on other land ownerships (FSM 1531.12e).
OBJECTIVES
National Forest System
Objectives of the range management program for the National Forests
and National Grasslands are:
1. To manage range vegetation to protect basic soil and water
resources, provide for ecological diversity, improve or
maintain environmental quality, and meet public needs for
interrelated resource uses.
2. To integrate management of range vegetation with other
resource programs to achieve multiple use objectives contained
in Forest land and resource management plans.
3. To provide for livestock forage, wildlife food and
habitat, outdoor recreation, and other resource values
dependent on range vegetation.
4. To contribute to the economic and social well being of
people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by
promoting stability for communities that depends on range
resources for their livelihood.
5. To provide expertise on range ecology, botany, and
management of grazing animals.
Question 17. Is anyone interested in acquiring the grazing permits
and how long will the transaction take to complete?
Answer. We have not asked for applications, so we know of no other
entity that meets the meet minimum qualification for base property and
livestock ownership.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Marc Basnight, State Senator, Raleigh, NC, on S. 3113
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, thank you for this opportunity
to submit a statement in support of S. 3113, introduced by Senators
Dole and Burr: To reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing
off-road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North
Carolina, pending the issuance of a final rule for off-road vehicle use
by the National Park Service.
My name is Marc Basnight, and I serve as President Pro Tempore of
the North Carolina Senate. Since 1984 I have had the honor of
representing State Senate District 1, which covers North Carolina's
northeastern region and the Outer Banks including the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore. I appreciate this opportunity to share the concerns
of the people I am honored to represent in the Senate, and to speak in
support of this legislative effort to protect what has been a focal
point of our community's culture, economy and coastal heritage for
generations.
Back in the late 1930s, when the federal government was creating
the recreational Seashore, Outer Banks residents and visitors were
deeply concerned that government involvement would interfere with the
public's enjoyment of and access to the beaches of Hatteras and
Ocracoke Islands. It was an incredible relief that the Park Service and
the Department of the Interior were willing to work so closely and
cooperatively with the local community to address these concerns at
that time--and ever since.
And it is both ironic and disheartening that the concerns and fears
expressed half a century ago now have come true because of intervention
from the judicial branch. The federal Consent Decree issued on April
30, 2008, is effectively breaking the Park Service's 1952 promise that
``. . . there will always be access to the beach for all people,
whether they are local residents or visitors from the outside.'' This
legislation will restore that promise and put the management of the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore back in the hands of the Park Service,
which has worked so diligently and judiciously over the years to
protect sensitive species while preserving beach access.
Beach driving and surf fishing are beloved local traditions and
recreational opportunities that help people truly appreciate--and in
turn, work to protect--our natural resources. The people who use this
resource, in fact, are among our most conscientious stewards of the
environment. In fact, outstanding beach access is a primary reason
visitors choose to visit Hatteras. They come back year after year with
their families to enjoy this unique opportunity and to teach their
children the importance of caring for the environment.
With the Consent Decree in place, visitors don't know when and
where they'll have access to the beach with their vehicle. While online
sites provide some guidance, these closure areas are large and can
change with little notice. Visitors worry that the fishing spot they
have visited for the past 20 years will not be accessible, even if it
was the day before. The economies of Hatteras and Ocracoke depend
heavily upon fishing and tourism, and losing access to some of the
nation's most premier surf-fishing spots has proven to be a devastating
blow to our local community and economy--and to the prestige that Cape
Hatteras gives North Carolina as a world-renowned destination for
fishing and recreation. According to the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau,
year-to-date meal and beverage receipts on Hatteras Island for 2008 are
down 7 percent from last year during the same time period. Visitation
to one of the Seashore's top attractions, the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse,
saw a 15 percent drop in visits for April through June. The small
businesses and families whose livelihoods depend on visitors are
reeling from the effects of the Consent Decree. I expect that our
state's overall economy will also feel some effects as well: Dare
County generates more tourism dollars per capita than any other county
in North Carolina.
Under circumstances defined in the Consent Decree, areas of
Hatteras could be closed to ORV use for 1,000 meters on either side of
a nest, which is 3,280 feet in two directions or over 1.2 miles. This
is especially disconcerting when you consider that the Seashore is only
200 feet wide in some spots. Hatteras residents and visitors treasure
this seashore and want to protect it because we have given them the
privilege to experience it in a way they cannot experience other
beaches. Before the Consent Decree, the Seashore has been managed by
the National Park Service in a manner consistent with its mission, and
should continue to be managed in that manner. The mission of the
National Park Service is ``to promote and regulate the use of the
national parks which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural
and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired or the enjoyment of future generations.''
Part of our National Park Service's mission is to be ``guardian of
our diverse cultural and recreational resources.'' Several of the
Guiding Principles of the National Park Service also speak to their
duty to protect ORV use on the Seashore:
Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with federal, state,
tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and
businesses to work toward common goals
Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens to
participate in the decisions and actions of the National Park
Service
Wise Decisions: Integrating social, economic, environmental,
and ethical considerations into the decision-making process.
Ensuring that residents and visitors to Cape Hatteras National
Seashore can enjoy the traditional uses of the area is the duty of the
Park Service, not the court system. Beach access has always included
vehicles--in fact, before we had roads built in the Outer Banks, the
beaches were our roads. In 1952 the Park Service stated a clear intent
to continue to allow vehicle access in the Seashore, specifically
noting that ``it will be necessary to establish certain regulations,
such as to designate places for vehicles to get to the beach, in order
to reduce sand dune erosion to a minimum . . .'' Anyone who knows the
Outer Banks knows that beach driving has always been part of our way of
life.
The National Park Service's Interim Management Plan, developed with
public input unlike the Consent Decree, is a balanced and sensible
management plan based on the best science available. This plan will
ensure reasonable ORV access that does not threaten delicate the
nesting habitat of shorebirds and turtles--and will provide the best
balance between man and nature until the National Park Service adopts
final rules for the Seashore.
This legislation will restore the Park Service to its proper role
in managing the Seashore and keep the federal government's promise to
the people. On behalf of the countless visitors who enjoy our beaches,
on behalf of the local businesses that are struggling so mightily to
survive, on behalf of the conservationists who believe that to truly
appreciate our natural resources you must have access to them, and on
behalf of the people of the Outer Banks and North Carolina, I ask for
your support of S. 3113.
I would like to express my appreciation to Senators Dole and Burr--
along with Congressman Jones in the House--for introducing this
important legislation, and to you, Mr. Chairman and all the committee
members, for giving this matter the consideration it is rightfully due.
Thank you so very much for allowing me to share my thoughts with you,
and for all you do in your service to our great nation.
______
Statement of Phil Krouse, Rancher, Krouse Ranch Inc., Southern Oregon,
on S. 3148
Chairman Akaka, Ranking member Burr, Members of the Subcommittee on
National Parks, my name is Phil Krouse and I am a rancher in Southern
Oregon. I would like to share my views regarding S. 3148, The Oregon
Caves Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008. I appreciate the
Subcommittee allowing me to submit this statement for the record. The
legislation before you today affects my family greatly. The grazing
allotments in question, the Big Grayback Allotment in the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National forest and the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment
managed by the Bureau of Land Management have been in my family for
over 70 years.
I grew up on these ranges and alongside my grandparents and parents
participated in something you only see in movies now days-cattle
drives. In the process I grew to love these mountains and meadows. The
names of ranchers who grazed cattle on these ranges: Oz Bigelow, Ed
Kubli, Chester York, Orr Brown, Arian Christiansen, and Mack McCarty
read like a history book of this southern Oregon region. Oz Bigelow
(Bigelow Lakes namesake) ran 800 head of cattle in this allotment that
we now run 70. Over the years we have voluntarily decreased grazing
herd size from our original permit of 200 head to the current 70.
In 1945 my grandfather Albert Krouse, my dad Francis Krouse, and
five other men from the ranching community of Applegate, Oregon built
the Krouse cabin at the bottom of the alpine glade on Grayback
Mountain. The cabin was their only shelter while gathering and
corralling the cattle. Not only did my family and I spend many happy
days and nights in that cabin but countless hikers, and nature
enthusiasts had the opportunity to enjoy this gem of Grayback; until it
was accidentally burned down in 2001.
I have been lucky enough to have shared these ranges not only with
previous generations of ranchers and family but also my son, two
daughters and now my grandchildren.
The loss of these allotments will be detrimental to the operation
of our ranch. We will no longer be able to have reprieve on the ranch
land in order to grow hay therefore it will not be cost effective for
ranch operations to continue to raise cattle on this scale. Cattle
ranching has been the only income this ranch has had for the past 5
generations. This loss would force us into unknown financial endeavors;
as a result this could mean the loss of our financial security, and way
of life.
While I am willing to donate my grazing leases to the Federal
Government in the best interest of the expansion of the Oregon Caves
Monument, for the sake of my family and future generations, I must make
sure that I am fairly compensated before I hand them over. I understand
that federal dollars are not available for grazing buyouts, but I am
aware that private buyouts are acceptable. I do, however, want to be
sure that I am allowed to freely graze livestock on these allotments
until I am ready to accept any deal from a private group that wants to
buy me out. I am also aware that the regulations for grazing on
National Park Service are a lot more stringent than what I have been
working with on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
land. I would ask the Committee to protect me until I am ready to
donate my leases and that the current FS and BLM grazing regulations
continue to apply to my allotments.
I would like to close with some personal observations. For many
people this buyout may seem to be about money, but I see it
differently. To me and many other ranchers in the west, this is about
preserving a way of life for future generations. I know that there has
been and will continue to be many efforts to remove livestock from
federal lands across the West. I urge the Committee to remember one
simple thing. These Allotments help build rural communities and are
part of the fabric of rural America. Farmers and ranchers are not the
villains they are sometimes portrayed as being and they take great
pride in producing the safest food supply in the world for Americans
and many others around the globe. I urge you to be aware of this as you
look at further buyouts of ranchers across the west, knowing that the
retirement of these leases means less food being produced domestically
and further reliance on imported food. We can't allow our food supply
to become like our energy supply. Our fellow Americans deserve better.
I thank the Subcommittee for its consideration of my comments and I
look forward to working with you.
______
Statement of Derb S. Carter, Jr., Southern Environmental Law Center,
on S. 3113
This supplemental testimony is submitted on behalf of the National
Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, and the
Southern Environmental Law Center, in order to supplement our testimony
provided prior to the National Park Subcommittee hearing on July 30,
2008.
Because the Consent Decree was agreed to by all parties to the
lawsuit in which it was entered, and because it provides overdue
protection of the natural resources of Cape Hatteras National Seashore
and allows for appropriately managed off-road vehicle (``ORV'') use, we
oppose Senate Bill 3113, legislation that would overrule the Consent
Decree and mandate a return to management practices that were resulting
in declines and disappearance of wildlife from the Seashore.
ADDITIONAL DATA
Since the National Park Subcommittee's July 30, 2008, hearing,
various government entities have released additional data that supports
the Consent Decree and militates against passage of Senate Bill 3113.
Effects of the Consent Decree on Wildlife at the Seashore
We previously reported that the number of successful sea turtle
nesting attempts had increased to 92 as of July 24, 2008, up from 82
during all of 2007. As of August 6, there have now been 101
successfully laid sea turtle nests, tying the all-time high for at
least the last 14 years.\1\ As over two weeks are left in the nesting
season, it is highly likely this year will set a new record for turtle
nests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The previous record was 101 in 2001. UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY, MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROTOCOLS FOR NESTING SEA TURTLES AT
CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA, 38 (2005). See also
OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WEEKLY
FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR AUGUST 6, 2008 at 2 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, the number of fledged American oystercatcher chicks at
the Seashore beaches has increased to 13 so far in 2008, up from 10
fledged chicks in all of 2007, and there are two chicks remaining which
have yet to fledge.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR AUGUST 6, 2008 at 1 (2008). These
figures exclude Green Island, which is not reachable by ORVs due to its
location in the sound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, these preliminary indicators, along with those we
reported in our initial testimony, show that all species appear to be
benefiting from the management measures required by the Consent Decree.
Economic Effects of the Consent Decree
We previously testified that, according to Dare County's Outer
Banks Visitors Bureau, visitation during May 2008 (the first month of
the Consent Decree) was 6.31% higher than May 2007.\3\ Dare County's
Outer Banks Visitors Bureau has now released its latest statistics, and
the trend has continued. Visitation during June 2008, as measured by
occupancy of motels, cottages, and other accommodations, was 7.32%
higher than in June 2007.\4\ This continued increase in visitation
occurred despite a still sagging economy and unrelenting high gas
prices. Allen Burrus, Vice Chair of the Dare County Board of
Commissioners, reports that his ``small mom-and-pop grocery store'' is
``doing well'' and that ``[b]usiness is up.''\5\ Accordingly, the
Consent Decree still appears to have little to no measured ill effect
on local tourism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ OUTER BANKS VISITORS BUREAU, GROSS OCCUPANCY SUMMARY 1994-2007,
www.outerbanks.org/pdf/Gross_Occupancy_Summary_receipts.pdf.
\4\ Id.
\5\ Ryan Hutchins, Outer Banks' tourism up in June despite economy,
VIRGINIAN-PILOT, Aug. 4, 2008, available at http://hamptonroads.com/
2008/08/outer-banks-tourism-june-despite-economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of the Consent Decree on Visitors to the Seashore
We previously reported that, of Cape Hatteras National Seashore's
67 miles of beaches, only 9.1 were closed to protect wildlife under the
terms of the Consent Decree as of July 24, 2008; all other beach
closures are the result of the usual seasonal and safety closures,
unrelated to the Consent Decree or wildlife protection. As of August 7,
2008, the number of miles closed for wildlife protection has decreased
to 7.9 miles under the Consent Decree, as bird chicks have fledged and
turtle nests have hatched.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BEACH ACCESS REPORT
FOR AUGUST 7, 2008 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, even more of the current amount of beach closures has
been caused by vandalism of fencing and other wildlife protection
measures. There have now been six incidents of vandalism (up from the
four incidents reported prior to the Subcommittee hearing); the first
violation in an area results in a 50 meter increase in the size of a
buffer and the second violation in the same area results in a 100-meter
increase.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Press Release, Outer Banks Group, A Sixth Deliberate Violation
of Resource Protection Area (July 31, 2008), at http://www.nps.gov/
caha/parknews/a-sixth-deliberate-violation-of-resource-protection-
area.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Warren Judge's Testimony
The parties to the Consent Decree--and the lawsuit in which it was
entered--are Dare County, Hyde County, Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance (``CHAPA''), the National Park Service, the
Department of the Interior, the National Audubon Society, and Defenders
of Wildlife. CHAPA is an umbrella organization that includes the Outer
Banks Preservation Association, the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club, and the
North Carolina Beach Buggy Association.\8\ Contrary to Mr. Judge's
testimony that implied to the contrary, all parties in the lawsuit
participated in the negotiations, supported the Consent Decree, and
recommended that the court approve it on April 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Association website, http://
capehatterasapa.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Chairman Akaka's question regarding how Dare County
could justify supporting legislation to overturn the Consent Decree
after agreeing to it, Dare County Commissioner Warren Judge testified
to the Subcommittee that his county was ``not a player at [the
negotiating] table until a hearing on April 4 in U.S District Court,''
and that ``it was even later than that when they finally invited us to
the table--not to negotiate, to tell us--to tell us what it was going
to be. We had our county attorney and assistant county manager in
Raleigh at the negotiations and they sent him home. After we released a
press release, telling that the negotiations had broken off, it was
only then that they called us back. It was 4:30 one afternoon that they
gave us an ultimatum and that ultimatum was either accept this by 5:00
or we will go forward into court and the--the--the threat to Dare
County was that the seashore would be closed down completely until
negotiated rulemaking ran its course.'' He concluded by stating that
``Yes, we signed the document. We signed it under great duress'' and by
making the unsubstantiated claim that the county would suffer
``economic[] devastati[on]'' due to complete beach closures if it had
not agreed to the Consent Decree.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Hearing on S. 3113 Before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, 110th Cong. (2008)
(oral statement of Warren Judge, County Commissioner for Dare County,
North Carolina)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This testimony was misleading, unsubstantiated, and incorrect.
First, complete closure of the entire Seashore beach was never demanded
or threatened by any party to the lawsuit or as part of the
negotiations that led to the Consent Decree. If Dare County had chosen
not to join the Consent Decree, the government and environmental groups
could have moved forward asking the court to accept it. Dare County and
the other Intervenors could have then objected to the Consent Decree
and appealed it if it was approved by the court. And even if the other
parties had not reached an agreement and presented a consent decree to
the court for approval, the court would have moved on to consider a
pending motion for preliminary injunction which requested the ORV
management protocols recommended as ``moderate protections'' by the
government's scientists at the United States Geological Survey, not
complete beach closure of the entire Seashore.\10\ In sum, complete
closure of the beach was not a threatened alternate outcome of the
lawsuit when Dare County chose to approve the Consent Decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 1Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on
January 20, 2008, in Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. National Park
Service et al., case number 2:07-CV-45-BO (U.S. Dist. Ct. for the
Eastern Dist. of N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Mr. Judge's assertion that Intervenors were not included
in negotiations is false. Although Dare County and the other
Intervenors were asked to submit a settlement proposal and invited to
actively join the negotiations on numerous occasions beginning when
their motion to intervene was first granted in December 2007, they,
through their attorney, initially repeatedly, consistently, and
affirmatively refused to submit a proposal. Dare County, Hyde County,
and the CHAPA did receive written settlement proposals from the
government and/or the environmental groups on or about December 20,
2007, February 28, 2008, April 2, 2008, and April 11, 2008. They
commented on those settlement proposals in February, March, and April,
and finally submitted their own initial settlement proposal on March
31, 2008.
The statements of Intervenors' attorney in court acknowledged this
extensive involvement in settlement negotiations prior to the April 4
hearing. Contrary to Mr. Judge's testimony that Intervenors were not at
the negotiating table before the April 4, 2008 hearing with Judge
Boyle, Intervenors' counsel confirmed at that hearing that they ``have
been in discussions'' and that there were ``certain areas that we have
of agreement.''\11\ This statement makes clear that not only were
Intervenors involved in negotiations prior to April 4, they were in
agreement on some elements of the negotiations. Moreover, by signing
the Consent Decree, Dare County and the other Intervenors affirmed that
it is a ``fair, just, adequate, and equitable resolution'' of the
lawsuit.\12\ As a result of these contradictions, Mr. Judge's response
to Sen. Akaka's question cannot be taken at face value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Hearing on April 4, 2008, in Defenders of Wildlife et al. v.
National Park Service et al., case number 2:07-CV-45-BO (U.S. Dist. Ct.
for the Eastern Dist. of N.C.).
\12\ Consent Decree at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
In sum, all parties and interests agreed in open court to the terms
of the Consent Decree augmenting the terms of the ``interim plan''
until such time as the National Park Service adopts a final ORV
management plan, and a federal court approved it. As the statistics
above and in our original testimony show, the slight increase in the
portions of the beach that have been closed to ORV use under the
Consent Decree has had little to no impact on tourism and on the
numbers of ORVs using the Seashore. At the same time, however, the
closures appear to have had a strikingly positive effect on the success
of the endangered, threatened, and sensitive species that live and
breed at Cape Hatteras. We ask, therefore, that this Committee reject
Senate Bill 3113 and leave the Consent Decree in place.
______
Statement of Gordon Robertson, Vice President, American Sportfishing
Association, on H.R. 3113
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the
record regarding S. 3113, to reinstate the Interim Management Strategy
governing off-road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
North Carolina, pending the issuance of a final rule for off-road
vehicle use by the National Park Service. The American Sportfishing
Association (ASA) is the sportfishing industry's trade association,
committed to representing the interests of the sportfishing industry,
as well as America's 40 million recreational anglers. ASA also invests
in long-term ventures to ensure the industry will remain strong and
prosperous as well as safeguard and promote the enduring social,
economic, and conservation values of sportfishing in America.
ASA urges members of the Subcommittee on National Parks and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to support S. 3113. The
provisions of the Interim Management Strategy balanced the resource
protection requirements for wildlife with reasonable access to the
beaches for pedestrians and off road vehicles. However, the provisions
of the Consent Decree are resulting in undue harm to the local
community without any significant added benefits to the wildlife of the
Seashore.
BACKGROUND
Presidential Executive Order 11644 of 1972 requires federal
agencies permitting off-road vehicle (ORV) use on agency lands to make
regulations for such use. However, a long-term ORV management plan was
never finalized for Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
(CHNSRA), and in late December 2007 the Secretary of Interior Dirk
Kempthorne approved the creation of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
(Reg-Neg) to facilitate the development of the plan. The Committee
consists of a variety of stakeholders and user groups of CHNSRA,
including anglers, local business owners, environmental groups, tourism
organizations, and homeowners, among others. ASA is also a member of
the Reg-Neg.
In addition to the Reg-Neg, on June 13, 2007 the National Park
Service (NPS) finalized an Interim Protected Species Management
Strategy (Interim Strategy) to ensure that wildlife within CNHSRA would
be protected during the creation of a long-term plan. This Strategy was
developed via an open, public process that included public comment, an
evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a
Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
It is important to note that the Reg-Neg was ``sold'' to community
residents as a way to avoid litigation, and ground rules were finalized
that specifically called for members to negotiate in good faith and to
``voluntarily curtail using other means to influence the proposed
regulations.'' All parties negotiated and verbally agreed to these
rules, including the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), National
Audubon Society (Audubon) and the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW), who all
hold a seat on the Reg-Neg Committee.
On February 20, 2008, after a series of court filings, DOW and
Audubon (Plaintiffs) filed an injunction that would essentially result
in all ORV access, except for essential NPS vehicles, being prohibited
on CHNSRA. As a result of this injunction, the Plaintiffs entered into
negotiations with the Department of the Interior (DOI), to be joined
later by Dare County as interveners. These negotiations resulted in a
consent decree that was ultimately approved by Federal District Judge
Terrence Boyle on April 30, 2008. The details of the Consent Decree are
extensive and put in place protections for shorebirds that exceed the
protections outlined in the Interim Strategy. This Consent Decree,
which will remain in effect for three years until the NPS issues a
final long-term ORV Management Plan, has resulted in substantial
restrictions on traditional ORV access to key surf fishing spots in
CHNSRA and an undue economic burden on the local economy with no
remarkable added benefit to the local wildlife.
INTERIM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY VS CONSENT DECREE
Although the NPS' Interim Strategy was not a final rule, it
provided stakeholders with all the procedural protections and
opportunities of a final rule, addressing the requirements of the
Executive Order and the appropriate regulations. For resource
protection, these included:
Year-round closure of areas historically occupied by nesting
or wintering plovers and that currently include suitable
habitat,
Closure (to ORVs as well as to pedestrians and pets) of
suitable breeding habitat through the breeding season,
Establishment of a minimum 150-foot buffer around all
nesting plovers,
Expansion of closed areas once eggs hatch, and
Monitoring to ensure that new closures are added or expanded
as required by bird activity.
The Interim Strategy also regulated ORV use, addressing the
requirements of the Executive Order through:
Consolidation and designation of beach access routes
Identification of a permitted ORV travel corridor on the
beach
Speed limits and license requirements for vehicle operators
Protection of vegetation and sea turtle and bird nesting
areas
Designation of summer seasonal ORV closures in front of
villages
Signage to notify visitors of the above
The development and approval of the Interim Strategy was performed
via an open, transparent process. As part of its development, the NPS
conducted a NEPA Review (including an economic analysis), ESA Section 7
Consultation, and public comment period. The provisions of the Consent
Decree were never subject to these reviews. There was no opportunity
for public participation, comment, or input. And more importantly,
while the provisions of the Consent Decree are based off of management
protocols developed by the USGS, neither the Consent Decree nor the
protocols have undergone any sort of evaluation under NEPA. Without
this evaluation, part of which is to weigh the benefits of resource
conservation measures with the costs imposed on local communities/
economies, the citizens of CHNSRA have been denied their due public
process.
The preliminary injunction filed by the Plaintiffs in early 2008
states that the Interim Strategy was inadequate. It even went as far as
to state, ``The first year of the `interim plan,' 2007, was one of the
worst bird breeding seasons on record.'' However, the Interim Strategy
was implemented in mid-June, 3 months after the bird breeding season
began. Therefore, since the Interim Strategy was not in place for a
complete breeding season, it is not reasonable to place the blame of
the 2007 breeding season on the Interim Strategy.
In reality, in the short time that the Interim Strategy was in
place it did serve to adequately protect the shorebirds and sea turtles
that breed in CHNSRA. It also served to set a foundation for a
successful ``pre-nesting'' season in Spring 2008.
The piping plover, the bird at the heart of this controversy, is
the only bird found on CHNSRA that is listed as federally threatened.
North Carolina is positioned in the species' range such it is at the
southern tip of the plover's breeding range and the northern tip of
their wintering range. Therefore, the piping plover never was and never
will be abundant in CHNSRA.
Also, the piping plover population on CHNSRA has always been
dependent on weather--specifically hurricanes--and predation. According
to NPS and FWS reports,\1\ the recent dramatic decline in the number of
breeding pairs of piping plovers in CHNSRA is due to eight hurricanes
that hit the Outer Banks of North Carolina in nine years. In 1996,
there were 14 breeding pairs; in 2004 there were three. However, no
hurricanes have hit the Outer Banks since 2004 and the number of
breeding pairs has slowly risen to six in 2007. Predators such as
seagulls, crows, raccoons, and foxes also contribute to nest failure
and juvenile mortality, since eggs and unfledged chicks are easy prey
and a typical part of their diets. In 2008, the only juvenile plover
mortality caused by human influences was during an NPS banding
exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annual Fish and Wildlife Service Piping Plover Status Updates,
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Annual Resource Management Reports, and
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Weekly Field
Summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, due to the pre-nesting closures that were called for
in the Interim Strategy and were put into place in March 2008, the
foundation was set for the piping plovers to have a successful breeding
season in 2008. In mid-July, the NPS determined that there have been 11
breeding pairs in the Seashore this year--one of the most successful
years in 20 years. However, this success is due to the pre-nesting
closures of the Interim Strategy, not the provisions of the Consent
Decree, which was not signed until after the breeding birds were on the
Seashore. In addition, the 2007 Interim Strategy allowed 67% of the
breeding pairs to fledge a chick, as compared to 63% under the consent
decree.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Weekly
Field Summary; July 17 to July 23, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Interim Strategy and the Consent Decree also focus on the
protection of colonial water birds (terns) and nesting shorebirds.
While some have contended that there has been a dramatic decrease in
the number of terns and black skimmers in CHNSRA, and that this
decrease is due to ORV use, the fact is that these birds have chosen to
nest on a dredge spoil island located in the sound within one quarter
of a mile of Hatteras Village. This island offers more preferable
habitat and is free of predators.
Finally, according the NPS, 22 pairs of American Oyster Catchers
hatched 15 nests and 29 chicks. In 2008, 23 breeding pairs again
hatched 15 nests and only 26 checks.\3\ The American Oyster Catcher has
strong site fidelity, meaning they tend to return to the same location
each year to breed. Therefore, the 2008 breeding success is due to the
resource protection measures provided by the Interim Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Weekly
Field Summary; July 17 to July 23, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Interim Strategy and the Consent Decree include provisions
to protect nesting sea turtles. Loggerhead turtles, the only turtle
nesting at CHNSRA in 2008, nest on average once every three years. Each
turtle lays an average of five nests per season at about one hundred
eggs per nest. While it's true that numbers are up this year--99 nests
this year as compared to 82 in 2007--the increase cannot be attributed
solely to the provisions of the Consent Decree. The number of sea
turtle nests are up all over North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia as well. In fact, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is
bordered both north and south by CHNSRA and not subject to the Consent
Decree--has had a record number of nests this year.
IMPACT ON CHNSRA
Beach driving is a traditional use of the CHNSRA, predating the
1937 authorization of the National Seashore, and has become a popular
method of access for recreational pursuits. The Consent Decree has
resulted in unprecedented closures (and blocked access of ``open''
areas) of the most popular areas of the seashore to both ORVs and
pedestrians, limiting access for all user groups including fishermen,
kiteboarders, swimmers, birdwatchers and families. It prohibits night
driving in summer, at the peak of the tourist season, and has also
restricted pedestrian access. It should be noted that even if a section
of beach might be deemed ``open'' for the purposes of comparing the
amount of open area vs the amount of closed area, it might not be
accessible to ORVs or pedestrians.
While the provisions of the Consent Decree will have less of an
impact during the fall, the summer closures are significant and during
the time the majority of vacationers visit CHNSRA, providing the
greatest economic input for the community. Because the Consent Decree
was never subject to a NEPA evaluation, an economic analysis was not
performed to measure the potential impact on the local tourism-based
economy. Many tackle shops and other businesses in CHNSRA have
experienced a decrease in business activity of up to 40%. While hotel
occupancy was initially up in May 2008 (the Consent Decree did not take
effect until May 1, after visitors could obtain a refund for their
hotel or rental property), it has fallen off through the summer months.
In addition, while fishing license sales throughout the State of North
Carolina have dropped an average of 39% since last year, license sales
in Dare County has decreased by 50%. Dare County was the largest seller
of saltwater licenses in 2007; they are now eighth in the state.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries and Wildlife
Resources Commission, Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses Sales
Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
The NPS maintains, and ASA agrees, that ORV's must be regulated in
a manner that appropriately addresses resource protection--including
protected, threatened and endangered species--and potential conflicts
among the various CHNSRA users. However, this was addressed by the
development of the Interim Strategy, which the NPS failed to defend in
the lawsuit. The end result is that Defenders of Wildlife and the
National Audubon Society have accomplished through litigation what they
pledged to work toward cooperatively toward in good faith with all
stakeholders through the Reg-Neg.
The Consent Decree was essentially exempted from the official NEPA
review process, and undermined NPS staff and their scientific data. It
set a precedent that private interest groups can negotiate a settlement
with the Administration, in absence of public input, to govern National
Park management. This is to the detriment of the 1,000 residents of the
seashore, whose livelihoods depend on beach access, and the millions of
CHNSRA visitors.
S. 3113 will reinstate a management strategy that underwent the
appropriate review process, restoring reasonable ORV and pedestrian
access to CHNSRA while providing appropriate shorebird and resource
protection. The enactment of S. 3113 will also provide relief for a
community suffering economic consequences due to the Consent Decree.
The Interim Strategy will provide ample protections for shorebirds
until the final ORV Management Plan is complete and will help to save
the economy and way-of-life of the Hatteras community--and the entire
Outer Banks of North Carolina.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.
______
Statement of Brian Leigh Dunnigan, Interim Director, Head of Research
and Publication, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
The battle cry ``Remember the Raisin'' made its way into American
history and memory during the War of 1812. Like its better-known
contemporary, ``Don't Give Up the Ship,'' it had its origins in a
United States defeat and was used to encourage American forces to rally
for future victories. ``Remember the Raisin'' recalls events that
transpired in and around the village of Frenchtown, or River Raisin, in
Michigan Territory between January 18 and 23, 1813, comprising a pair
of small but fierce battles and an incident in which the wounded of the
defeated American force were attacked by Native American allies of the
British. It was the latter occurrence, and the belief that it was
encouraged by the British, that was to be remembered by the soldiers
and civilians who took up the cry.
The River Raisin battlefield site is today in a condition that
allows its designation and preservation as a National Historic Landmark
for the special significance of what it represents about the War of
1812. The battles fought there in January 1813 were not particularly
influential in changing the course or the direction of the war or even
the military campaign on the southern margins of the Great Lakes. The
significance of the site lies in its manifestation that the War of 1812
in the West actually constituted a pair of parallel conflicts, in which
United States forces contended with the British and Canadians in a
conventional war but were also involved in a full-scale and bitter
wilderness conflict with the remaining organized Native American groups
living east of the Mississippi River. The fighting represented the
culmination of conflict in the Old Northwest between Indians and Euro-
Americans that had been underway since the 1750s, and the War of 1812
was the last time that the native peoples of that vast region would
fight effectively for their land and their independence.
The circumstances that caused a force of around one thousand US
regulars and Kentucky militia to march into the village of Frenchtown
(today Monroe, Michigan) in January 1813 resulted from efforts by
United States forces to recover from the disastrous outcome of an
attempt to invade British Canada from the Michigan Territory in the
summer of 1812. This had ended in the loss of Forts Mackinac and
Dearborn, an army, and Detroit, the territorial capital, and had
exposed the frontiers of Ohio and Indiana Territory to attack by the
British and their Native American allies. All of the surrenders of 1812
had been influenced by the real or perceived possibility that
resistance might cause Native American warriors to take their revenge
on hapless civilians, an implied threat that British leaders used to
their advantage to ensure victory.
The fighting of January 18 (an American victory) and January 22 (a
successful British-Indian counterattack) left some sixty-five American
wounded, who were not removed to the British post of Malden with their
fellow prisoners of war. These unfortunates and about thirty able-
bodied comrades were sheltered in houses of the River Raisin
settlement, where Native American warriors set upon them on January 23.
It was a scenario that played to the worst fears of the American
frontiersman--that his fate as a captive might be in the hands of a
relentless and unmerciful native enemy.
The attack on the wounded at River Raisin and the implied collusion
of the British by leaving the helpless prisoners unguarded and exposed
presented a propaganda opportunity that could be directed against both
enemies of the United States in the western war. The British could be
made to appear to have ignored the rules of ``civilized'' warfare,
while the action of the Indians was exactly what most Americans
expected and feared. A lurid contemporary print depicting the attack on
the wounded makes the charge, through its visual details, that the
British provided both scalping knives and liquor to fuel the atrocity.
This implication harks back to the fighting in the Old Northwest during
the 1790s when the British were accused of encouraging and supplying
Native American resistance to the advance of the American frontier. In
the event the message was not clear, the River Raisin print also
includes a British flag waving above a nearby military encampment,
although no red-coated soldiers are in evidence to intervene and save
the wounded Americans.
The attack on the wounded at the River Raisin struck a special
chord with the citizens of Kentucky and the frontier area north of the
Ohio River. The call for vengeance inherent in ``Remember the Raisin''
set the tone for the fighting that took place in northern Ohio and
Ontario during the military campaign of 1813. This culminated in an
American victory at the Battle of the Thames, in October, and the death
of the celebrated Shawnee leader, Tecumseh. Although Native American
resistance was not crushed in this battle, the symbolic loss was
considerable, and the peace treaty between the United States and
Britain that ended the War of 1812 left them with no guarantees for the
future.
The War of 1812 in the West was a very different conflict than that
fought along the eastern seaboard and the northeastern border of the
United States and British Canada. The conflict in the West included the
additional component of widespread warfare with Native Americans--a
continuation of the fighting that had wracked the region for the past
sixty years. The War of 1812 would effectively end that long conflict
and set the stage for the gradual extinguishing, over the next twenty-
five years, of Indian land claims and the removal of many Native
Americans beyond the Mississippi River.
The River Raisin battlefield site is highly significant as a
reminder of the dual conflict represented by the War of 1812 in the
West and its impact on the continued western expansion of the United
States and the future of the Native American peoples of the region. It
represents the symbolic culmination of the clash between American
frontiersmen and Native Americans in the Old Northwest. No other site
better represents this theme of American history, and its relevance is
strengthened by the River Raisin's proximity to two other sites,
Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial, representative of the
conventional war with the British, and Fallen Timbers, which represents
the Indian wars of the 1790s.
______
Statement of J.W. ``Bill'' Wade, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees, on S. 3113
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
we ask that you accept this statement for the record, reflecting the
views of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees on the
important topic of protecting resources and providing for visitor
enjoyment at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina.
The Coalition now consists of 660 individuals, all former employees
of the National Park Service, with more joining us almost daily.
Together we bring to this hearing over 19,500 years of accumulated
experience. Many of us were senior leaders and many received awards for
stewardship of our country's natural and cultural resources. As
rangers, executives, park managers, biologists, historians,
interpreters, planners and specialists in other disciplines, we devoted
our professional lives to maintaining and protecting the national parks
for the benefit of all Americans--those now living and those yet to be
born. In our personal lives we come from a broad spectrum of political
affiliations and we count among our members six former Directors or
Deputy Directors of the National Park Service, twenty-three former
Regional Directors or Deputy Regional Directors, twenty-eight former
Associate or Assistant Directors and over one hundred and fifty former
Park Superintendents or Assistant Superintendents.
We are strongly opposed to S. 3113, which would reinstate the
Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, pending the issuance of a final rule by the
National Park Service (NPS).
This proposed legislation, evidently promoted by very narrow
special interests, would inappropriately and unnecessarily rescind a
consent-decree agreed to by Defenders of Wildlife and the National
Audubon Society; and Dare and Hyde Counties and the Cape Hatteras
Access Preservation Alliance (an off-road vehicle group). The decree
safeguards wildlife, while still allowing visitors to fish, surf, drive
on certain portions of the beach and enjoy other activities at the
Seashore.
This proposed Bill is partisan legislative interference at its
worst, and not only would overrule a legitimate judicial process,
agreed to by both sides of the issue; but could negatively influence
the established negotiated rulemaking process currently underway that
has brought together many parties with interests in how the NPS
ultimately manages off-highway vehicles and, at the same time, protects
wildlife at the Seashore.
The National Park Service has been out of compliance with its
legislated responsibilities for a number of years and is now making a
determined effort to meet those requirements.
What is critically important here is that a final solution must be
reached that will provide for the protection of several threatened
species of birds and turtles for the enjoyment of Americans now and in
the future; while still allowing for appropriate levels of other
visitor uses in the Seashore. We believe that the legally derived
consent decree ought to be allowed to stand and that the legitimate
negotiated rulemaking process ought to be allowed to run its course,
both without interference from legislation that represents only a very
narrow set of interests. We believe this is the best process to meet
the mission of the National Park Service at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore.
______
Statement of Frank M. Folb, Frank & Fran's The Fisherman's Friend,
Inc., Avon, NC, on S. 3113
Thank you, Chairman Daniel K. Akaka and the committee for the
opportunity to submit written testimony for the record in support of S.
3113.
I am Frank Folb, the 65 year old who is owner and Secretary/
Treasurer of Frank and Fran's The Fisherman's Friend. My wife and I
have been operating this retail fishing tackle store in Avon, NC for
over twenty years. My wife and I have lived on Hatteras Island since
August 1975 and my mother's family (the Miller family) goes back many
generations on Hatteras Island. I am a present member of the Negotiated
Rule Making Committee formed to advise the National Park Service in
establish an ORV plan for the Cape Hatteras National Recreational
Seashore. I represent Avon Property Owners Association where I was past
president and now hold a director's position. (The association
represents over 1800 property owners in Avon.) I am a member of the
Outer Banks Preservation Association, and past director, since the mid
1970's, a member of the Cape Hatteras Angler's Club, the North Carolina
Beach Buggy Association, and the American Sportfishing Association.
Until recently, when this matter consumed every waking hour of my time,
I was a member of four North Carolina Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committees, a NC Sea Grant Committee and a Federal Fisheries Committee.
Over two years ago the National Park Service began taking
applications for committee members of the Negotiated Rule Making
Advisory Committee for implementing the Off Road Vehicle Plan mandated
by President Nixon's 1972 Executive Order. At the interviews, we were
told that we would be working from an even playing field and that all
options would be considered that would be applicable under NEPA
regulations. Meetings were held to consider facilitators for the
meetings. Two workshops for potential committee members were held, and
during these workshops the problem of the lawsuit instituted by
potential members of the committee were discussed and the level playing
field was discussed. At one of the meetings in Nags Head, NC I noted
that although we would not be given Pea Island Wildlife Refuge as an
area of consideration for routes and areas for Off Road Vehicles to be
used that the area would be considered as a negotiating chip in future
meetings. And finally, we were placed in the Federal Register for
comment before being formally given positions by the Secretary of the
Interior. From the first official meeting to present, no even playing
field has been present due to the law suit and now due to its
settlement. At the two court hearings on the suit, the judge showed
adamant disregard for the intervener's comments and total belittling to
the justice department's lawyers. At the April 4th 2008 hearing he
questioned why the plaintiff wanted an extension when he was ready to
give them injunctive relief then. At the April 30th 2008 hearing he
washed his hands of the matter in giving them the consent decree after
over thirty minutes of questioning, preaching and degrading of the
whole process. The settlement was reached behind closed doors without
comment from the public and it was based on questionable, non-peer
reviewed science. The interim plan in place when the settlement was
reached had gone through public review and a Section 7 was done by NPS
and USFW.
As a member of the public and Negotiated Rule Making Committee, I
felt that through the NEPA and our committee process that there were
less restrictive options than the interim plan covered that could be
implemented. The consent decree has destroyed the committees' ability
to negotiate any balanced ideas less than its requirements. In fact, in
an informal gathering of three members of the pro access committee
members and two of the environment committee members that sit on a sub-
committee for areas and routes for off road vehicles this summer during
the break of formal full committee meetings on Tuesday July 22, 2008 it
became apparent that the environmental members want more restrictive
regulations than the present consent decree allows for the final plan.
Under the impending lawsuit and the implementation of the consent
decree, my business has already suffered financial losses. In 2007
North Carolina's legislature instituted a fishing license that many
feared would cause decreased revenue, but we had a very good year.
Although in 2007 the fishing license was new and only warnings were
issued, the NC Department of Marine Fisheries forecast for 2008 was
that there would be higher sales this year. Dare County, who was the
largest seller of fishing license in 2007 for the state and my
business, have seen negative sales of licenses this year and they
follow closely the decreases in business I have encountered. You may
see the table taken from my business records below:
Many vacationers this year were unaware of the restrictions on
their activities and others that did know would lose large deposits on
homes they have rented this year. For this reason, 2009 will be much
worse than this year. We have reduced our work force by two people this
year and morale is bad. Had I sold my business two to three years ago
when the market and economy were peaking I could have retired, but now
with the economy reducing the value of my business by 20% and the
consent decree reducing the business I would have difficulty selling
the business for 50% of the offer I had two years ago. Our business is
Fran and my retirement fund, but now that looks bleak.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit written testimony.
Statement of Frank M. Folb, Fran & Fran's The Fisherman's Friend, Inc.,
on S. 3113
I hope you will take the time to read this letter and the
accompanying attachments I have put together. My family resides in
Buxton, NC in the middle of Cape Hatteras National Recreational
Seashore. We have lived on the island most of our lives and have been
full time residents in Buxton, NC since 1975 when my mother passed away
and we moved into my parent's residence. Our home is only a tenth of a
mile from where she and past generations of her family now rest. My
father moved to America from Lithuania inl 900 at the age of 8 to
escape the poverty, persecutions, and terrors of that society with WW1
looming.
As I am sure you know, Cape Hatteras is synonymous with surf
fishing and is widely considered the surf fishing capital of the East
coast. To access the fishing areas, fishermen have for years utilized
`` Beach Buggys'' 4x4 SUV vehicles. This access is eminently being
threatened. For the last 12 weeks the best areas of the seashore have
been closed during the peak spring fishing and visitor season. Closing
these areas is the equivalent of closing Florida Keys waters during
Tarpon season or blocking off the entrance to Magic Kingdom at Disney
World. Thousands of fishermen make their annual spring pilgrimage to
Cape Hatteras in quest of the spring fish runs and to enjoy summer
beach activities. With the down turn in the economy Cape Hatteras is a
relatively inexpensive drive to location that in the past has shown
increases of visitors, however, this year National Park Service records
show a 17 percent plus decrease in visitation. This decrease is not
related to the current price of gas. Just north of us the Wright
Brothers Memorial is showing a slight 2 percent decrease in visitors.
We can have 4x4 SUV accesses to major surf fishing hot spots
without threatening any bird life. Unfortunately no one uses the middle
ground anymore. Every issue has an extremist these days and no good
comes from it. These extremists I am referring to hide under the
disguise of GREEN and have their own agenda which is threatening our
islands heritage, way of life and economic well being. Under the
present regulations provided by the Consent Decree, an area the size of
three US Navy Super Carriers lined end to end as a radius fenced off
for each nest with a hatched piping plover, allows no off-road vehicles
or pedestrian access to the area.(See attached illustration.)*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our island is being threatened by an all too familiar radical
political movement called ``environmentalism,'' that is plaguing the
entire USA, and denying us of property and public land usage rights,
and the individual right to participate fully in the policy-making of
government agencies that affect our businesses and our traditional way
of life. The particular organizations that have taken control of our
community and caused great harm to our way of life and the economy are
the Audubon Society, the Defenders of Wildlife, and the Southern
Environmental Law Institute. Unlike these well funded special interest
groups, our community citizens' group has very limited out of pocket
funding, but never the less has fended off these groups in court
actions for eight years spending nearly $1,000,000.00. These are moneys
that we could have used for our health care and education of our
children.
On April 30, 2008 Federal District Judge Terrence Boyle, allowed
these groups, with the help of highly biased ``green minded'' officials
in the Department of Interior in Washington, to settle a suit against
the National Park Service, behind closed doors, without public comment
or review. Many of my fellow citizens believe that the National Park
Service officials in Washington went to these groups and said; ``Sue us
so we can get what we want on Cape Hatteras and we will roll over in
court.'' The local concerned citizens group, Dare County, and Hyde
County filed as interveners, but only through last minute acceptance in
the negotiations were they able to salvage small concessions before the
``settlement'' was finalized by the court. The judge signed off on what
is essentially a federal regulation contracted between radical
environmental groups and the federal government where, in actuality,
the federal government agrees to answer to these special interest
groups for the next three years, ignoring scientific facts and the
needs and desires of the general public. The interveners had no choice
but to go along with the agreement or have the publicly accessible
shoreline shut down completely. The court knew that and could have at
least opened the settlement to include public hearings.
The stated reason for court approval of the ``closure'' provisions
of the settlement was the protection and production of bird species.
Two species of birds, neither of which are listed by the government as
endangered, are specified in the settlement: the Piping Plover and the
American Oystercatcher. The closure distances and provisions in the
settlement are not based on published science; they are arbitrary.
Along the 60-mile park coast, only 7 piping plovers fledged this
breeding season. The 15-year production rate for the piping plover is
0.66 chicks/pair. The Park Service today announced that this year's
Piping Plover production level is 0.64. That rate is less than the rate
when there was beach access by ORVs. Much is the same for the American
Oystercatcher, out of 27 birds that hatched only 10 have fledged.
Most nests and hatched birds have been lost to predation, a few to
storms, and one at the hands of a university researcher. This data
suggests that ORVs do not reduce the productivity of birds and that
previous park management programs (the interim strategy) has been
effective at protecting birds.
The shutdown of the park beaches has been a tremendous insult to
the public. It is waste of public resource at an outrageous cost to the
local community, county, state and federal government. The consent
decree is ``bad public policy'' to the point of being a ``public
nuisance'' as illustrated below:
The public has been deprived of public participation and
park access rights. Particularly affected are the disabled and
elderly members of our society who cannot get to the beach even
on foot.
The consent decree has created enormous public anxiety and
outrage. The closures policy has been the catalyst for threats
of physical violence, public disobedience, slander, and
vandalism. It has contributed to a distrust of government and
unnecessary tensions between citizen groups.
Park Service professionals have been stripped of their
prerogatives to make judgment calls and deal reasonably and
equitably with the public they are sworn to serve.
Especially disturbing, the consent decree establishes a
policy of retaliation and punishment for the general public
when violations of the consent decree occur. Every time there
is an act of vandalism, the Park Service is required, without
any management discretion, to significantly extend boundaries
and widen non-access areas.
Visitor habits and plans are changing. Hundreds of trips to
the Outer Banks have been canceled or redirected to other parts
of the country because of actual or threatened beach closures
The decree has produced significant economic harm to small
family businesses. For some businesses, revenues are down 50%
or more and some employees have been laid off. Gas station,
restaurant, and motel revenues are down.
Risks of ORV and pedestrian accidents have increased as ORVs
and pedestrians are forced into smaller areas.
On certain days, there is an absence of public parking and
unclear direction and access to the shore line.
We need your committee's help! What can you do? I have some ideas,
but being a small fish in a large sea of bigger, smarter fish I defer
to the expertise of my countries legislators. My ideas are as follows:
1. We want the park returned to the full control of the US
Park Service who by profession will answer to the needs of the
public. A federal judge is not qualified to manage a national
park. Make the legislation (Sen. Bill 3113) stronger by going
back and reviewing the enabling legislation. There you will
find that Cape Hatteras National Recreational Seashore was set
up for the people first in its design and management.
(Investigate the interveners file and its attachments filed in
the lawsuit against National Park Service that resulted in this
bill.)
2. Hold congressional hearings on the matter of conflict of
political interests and investigate the appearance of
preferential treatment and special consideration for
environmental organizations by senior management of National
Park Service, Department of Interior, and US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
3. Investigate the blocking of rebuilding a bridge over
Oregon Inlet which has received the same mistreatment as the
public access issue is receiving now. These environmental
activists groups are also putting the public at great risk by
delaying the construction of the much needed Bonner Bridge. The
current bridge is rated at an extremely dangerous category 2 on
a scale of 100. It is the only evacuation route from a
hurricane prone island that during hurricane season may have
tens of thousands of visitors in addition to twenty thousand
full time residents.
4. Pass Sen. Bill 3113 out of committee and get it passed to
enable local NPS the ability to retake control of the seashore
and allow time for Negotiated Rule Making and NEPA to properly
put in place an ORV plan.
______
Statement of Jeffrey A. Golding, Resident of Buxton, NC, on S. 3113
I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit written
testimony for the record in support of S. 3113. As a knowledgeable and
concerned citizen, I feel it is my civic duty to make timely comment
and to respectfully request that you pass S. 3113 out of committee and
allow a vote by the Senate.
When Congress established Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreation Area (CHNSRA) in 1937 its intent was to permanently provide
for all Americans a unique area for their enjoyment and use. For years
now, those of us who utilize this unique resource have been under
assault by a variety of environmental special interest groups who would
deny us access, but not themselves. They have tried compaction studies
attempting to show that ORVs' were damaging the beach. Only to find
their data lost when it rained or a storm occurred. They have filed
lawsuit after lawsuit in federal court claiming harm and inadequate
protection for the birds and turtles that nest here. And in each case,
where evidence was heard from both sides in the court, they were sent
packing. Quite simply, their claims were refuted by sound science and
law. All of this was at the expense of the American taxpayer. What
occurred April 30th, 2008, in Judge Terrence Boyle's court changed
everything.
It's the Piping Plover that has become the ``poster child'' for
these groups. The plover is a relative newcomer to CHNSRA. Every bird
study conducted between 1900 and 1959 show that it was not until 1960
that the first birds arrived in the Park. Plovers nest independently of
one another and not in colonies. They neither feed nor care for their
young from the moment they hatch. They nest in areas that are subject
to frequent overwash and frequently lose nests as a result. This has
already occurred at CHNSRA in the 2008 breeding season, and not just
with plovers. Predation has also taken its toll this year.
The Piping Plovers that nest at CHNSRA are part of the Atlantic
breeding population which is considered ``threatened'', not endangered.
It is very important to understand that CHNSRA is on the extreme
Southern edge of the Plovers breeding range which accounts for the
historically low numbers within the Park. Most Plovers nest well north
of the Park, from Virginia's Eastern Shore to Newfoundland, Canada;
with the majority of nesting occurring mid-range.
I am an individual who has utilized this resource, this National
Seashore Recreational Area, for almost three decades. And, like many, I
am very familiar with this beach system--predicting structure changes,
overwash, and the like comes as second nature. Collectively, we possess
more first hand knowledge of the workings of the beaches and the
wildlife at CHNSRA than any environmental group in existence. This has
actually been proven in the field on more than one occasion. It is,
therefore, no surprise that an Alberta, Canada Plover study contains
the following statement: ``human presence in an area can be a very
effective form of predator deterrence.'' (USFW 2000) Interesting as
well is a statement by Tim Gallagher, editor-in-chief of Living Bird
magazine, published in the spring 2000 edition; ``But the large number
of people always present at beaches does have a remarkable taming
effect on birds.'' This reflects what we see daily as we visit our
cherished beaches.
There are 21 documented ORV related plover deaths in the entire
United States. Twenty of these were committed by federal vehicles. In
the 47 years prior to the Consent Decree, not one single plover death
can be attributed to an ORV user in this Park. One hundred percent of
plover mortality at CHNSRA has been a result of either storms or
predation. A far cry from the 24 Piping Plover nests the Army Corps of
Engineers destroyed recently in the name of floating two barges of
alfalfa pellets down a tributary of the Missouri River.
The Defenders of Wildlife (DOW), National Audubon Society, and the
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) would have one believe that
none of which I write in these pages is true--though it's all in the
public record.
The Consent Decree deals also with other birds such as Black
Skimmers, Common Terns, Least Terns, Gull-billed Terns, Wilson's
Plover, and American Oystercatchers. None of whom are threatened or
endangered. The Consent Decree treats them as though they are, and at
additional taxpayer expense. It also deals with the variety of sea
turtles that occasionally nest on the Park's beaches though now
requiring full beach closures, unlike the Interim Strategy.
Some ``Inconvenient Truths'' for DOW, Audubon and SELC include:
Under the Interim Strategy (IMS) the 2007 nesting season was the most
successful Plover breeding season in over 20 years. Currently, under
the Consent Decree, a single Plover chick is given enough beach area to
cover the decks of three U.S. Navy Super Carriers, the largest warships
on earth (1000m). As such, in most American communities, a convicted
child molester can live closer to a public school than a fisherman and
his family can get to a plover.
On a positive note, the Atlantic Piping Plover population is fast
approaching the 2000 nesting pair's figure that makes them eligible for
de-listing as threatened. The most recent counts show 1700 nesting
pair. Just four years ago, the most accurate estimate was 1400 pair.
This represents a rather dramatic increase in breeding pairs in a very
short period. And by some recent estimates, the Atlantic Piping Plover
will reach the 2000 nesting pair figure in approximately three years.
Unfortunately, at the cost of even more taxpayer dollars, de-listing
the Atlantic Plover population is probably going to be challenged in
court.
The environmental groups also claim a substantial drop in Black
Skimmer and Gull-billed Tern numbers. What they don't want you to know
is that the bird count for the 2007 season shows a better than 20%
increase in numbers. They know very well that the birds chose to nest
on a newly re-created dredge spoil island, Cora June Island, which is
within sight of the Park. In a survey of colonial waterbirds released
by N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission in February 2008, in which Walker
Golder, attorney for Audubon, plaintiff, and member of Negotiated
Rulemaking participated, the Commission writes:
An outstanding success story can be found on Cora June
Island, located near Hatteras Inlet. This island disappeared
during Hurricane Isabel in 2003 but was rebuilt in spring 2007
during a dredging project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Only months after rising from the sea, the island was home to
one of the largest mixed tern/black skimmer colonies in the
state with good numbers of nesting adults that successfully
fledged hundreds of chicks.
The recent survey, which was conducted in spring 2007, is one
of 10 complete coast-wide surveys conducted since the late
1970s to monitor population trends, distribution of colony
sites and nesting habitat conditions. Data gleaned from the
surveys help biologists make management and conservation
decisions and prioritize research. The next water bird survey
is scheduled for 2010.
Never mind that environmental groups have sued to stop the creation
of additional spoil islands which would provide substantial new habitat
for the very birds they profess the need and desire to protect.
In addition, they would prefer you to believe that night time
driving on the beaches at CHNSRA disorients sea turtles. Hence the ban
imposed by the Consent Decree. But they would have you ignore Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge, the northern 22 miles of beach on
Hatteras Island. At Pea Island NWR, there is no beach driving and less
than a dozen lights visible from the sea. Very few pedestrians frequent
these beaches due to the difficulty in accessing them. And yet Pea
Island has no greater turtle nesting success than ORV accessible
beaches, but does have more false crawls, aborted nesting attempts,
than the open beaches. They would also have you ignore the fact that
Plovers don't nest there either, in spite of the excellent beach
conditions.
Under the Consent Decree, if a turtle nests within the relatively
minute portion of beach that's still accessible by ORV, the Park
Service is required to establish virtually the same nest enclosure as
established within the Interim Strategy. Beach users may drive by, park
by and fish by this clearly marked 10' by 10' enclosure at will. Until,
that is, September 15th. On that date, the Consent Decree imposes full
beach closures in addition to the procedures outlined in the IMS,
making those areas impassable by vehicle or pedestrian. This is absurd
and arbitrary. The Consent Decree clearly states that if a nest is
approaching its anticipated hatch date (pre-September 15) NPS is to
follow the same procedures outlined in the IMS, not including full
beach closures. Which means that in spite of the additional ``path''
NPS constructs to funnel the hatchlings to the sea, the beach
immediately outside this small closure is still accessible to both
pedestrian and ORV use. So why is September 15th , the ``magic'' day
for full beach closures under the Consent Decree? Because this is an
arbitrary date by which perhaps some of the bird closures will have
been reduced and the Consent Decree finally allows for ``permitted''
night driving. This is a thinly veiled maneuver to continue to prevent
ORV access to the beach. If it was ok for me to drive by or park and
fish right next to the closure on the 14th, it should be just fine on
the 15th.
They don't want you to know that at the best of times ORV users can
only access less than 30% of the beaches at CHNSRA and that their ``12%
of the beaches affected'' figure assumes 100% ORV access. This has not
been true for many, many years. The truth is that well over 90% of the
beach is currently closed either directly or by default. Areas bounded
on both sides by closures are inaccessible even though they are
technically open. They prefer to focus on ORV's but the current
closures prohibit pedestrian use as well. No entry means just that.
It is, I think, ironic that as I labor over this communication,
Defenders of Wildlife have just sent their members an e-mail dated June
15th, 2008 that describes success as a result of the Consent Decree.
``Since some of the most sensitive areas were closed to vehicles, birds
like the piping plover and the American oystercatcher have been
bouncing back.''
Plover numbers are almost the same as they were last year under the
IMS. I don't know about the American Oystercatchers (AMOY) yet except
for the nest on the Pamlico Sound side of HWY 12 between Frisco and
Hatteras villages. There, less than 150' from the 55 MPH traffic, in
plain sight, an AMOY pair feeds their young and raises them to fledge
quite happily.
They also write, ``The emergency plan was developed to be flexible,
with temporary closures that can be lifted and reopened to vehicles
once wildlife is no longer using certain areas. Already, some areas
have been reopened this season.''
This ignores the rash of immediate closures that followed the April
30th signing of the Consent Decree. Because of the Consent Decree,
anyone with a cell phone can call NPS, report bird activity and the
Park Service is required to close the area for weeks at a time. All of
the areas that have been reopened as of 6/26/08 were initially closed
due to inaccurate and perhaps false observation.
They would rather you didn't think of them as parties to the
lawsuit that has prevented the replacement of the Bonner Bridge, Cape
Hatteras' lifeline and only over ground hurricane evacuation route; a
bridge with a safety rating of 4 out of 100. The bridge in Minnesota
that collapsed in 2007, killing many, was rated at 27. Since when do we
so blatantly condone risking the loss of human life? The environmental
groups have already announced that if the new bridge is attempted they
will sue.
The Consent Decree is an obvious attempt at changing a National
Seashore Recreation Area into a private wildlife refuge. Which has so
far, been successful at the cost of untold taxpayer dollars. Remember
that the plaintiffs are consistently reimbursed their legal fees and
expenses by the already strapped Park Service and DOI. You must also
consider the cost of constant monitoring, flying in and housing of un-
needed special event teams, additional, extensive new signage,
additional vehicles, law enforcement and infrastructure.
The impact of the Consent Decree on the economies of the villages
bounded by the Park has been astounding. I know this first hand as it
cost me my job. Conditions under the Consent Decree continue to fester
as more Americans and foreign visitors discover that the experience
they expected when they arrived at CHNSRA has been almost entirely
compromised. Thousands have already cancelled their reservations or
vowed not to return. And yet both the environmental groups and United
States Fish and Wildlife Service continue to utilize the arguably inept
Voglesong study as the foundation of their economic and visitor usage
statements in spite of a government funded peer review that deems the
study essentially worthless. The esteemed panel also regarded the data
and its collection methods so flawed that further review of that data
would be a waste of time.
Dr. Michael A. Berry served as any Army officer in Vietnam in the
1960s. After returning to civilian life, he earned a doctorate in
public health and worked in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
where as a senior manager and scientist, he served as the deputy
director of National Center for Environmental Assessment at Research
Triangle Park in North Carolina. During his 28-year career with EPA, he
had extensive interactions with environmental organizations, local
governments, the federal courts, U.S. Congress, universities world-
wide, and institutions, such as the National Academy of Sciences, the
World Health Organization, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
For more than 20 years, Berry, who lives in Chapel Hill, taught public
health, environmental science, and business and environment courses at
the University of North Carolina. He is currently a writer and part-
time consultant, specializing in the evaluation of environmental
quality and human health effects, environmental management strategies,
and policy.
He writes,
There has been no opportunity for public participation,
comment, and input with regard to this new ORV regulation. For
any environmental regulation issued by the federal government,
citizens have the right of public review and comment as
provided by the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. Under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, citizens also have a right
to know about and attend federal government meetings,
especially when those meeting involve special-interest
organizations trying to influence the government. Under the
Freedom of Information Act, citizens have a right to obtain all
unclassified information, such as scientific information and
correspondence with special-interest parties, that is held by
the federal government.
The Consent Decree has changed the very nature of the Park. Though
the environmental groups claim to want to preserve CHNSRA for future
generations, I fail to see the value of a National Park that remains
inaccessible during the spring, summer and fall, when the majority of
Americans that visit the Park take their vacations at this time. And if
USFWS gets their way by declaring CHNSRA critical wintering habitat for
Great Lakes and Great Plains plover populations, though they openly
admit they have no idea where the wintering birds originate, this will
include the late fall and winter months as well.
Preservation has been, so far, successful without court
intervention and a draconian Consent Decree. What choice did Dare and
Hyde counties and the various beach access groups have other than to
consent? It came down to either accepting an agreement that they had no
voice in and hoping for the best or face certain closure and the
enormous economic impact that it would spawn.
A Federal Judge is bound by law to render a fair decision based
upon the merits of the evidence presented before the Court. But Judge
Boyle declared his intention to provide the environmental groups
exactly what they sought without hearing any evidence from either point
of view and precluded the intervening parties, Dare, Hyde, OBPA, CHAPA
and others from entering any evidence at all. This occurred within the
first few minuets of the February 2008 scheduling conference. During a
later hearing, in spite of being charged by law to consider the
economic impact of the proposed closures within the Consent Decree
Judge Boyle repeatedly declared his lack of knowledge and understanding
of CHNSRA, the villages contained therein, and signed the decree
anyway. His obsession with closing Ramp 4 (Bodie Island Spit) as
related in the transcripts of the April hearing is baffling. What the
negotiations between the environmental groups and DOI promulgated can
only honestly be referred to as a Decree of Forced Consent.
CHNSRA was established first and foremost as a National Seashore
Recreational Area. This is blatantly obvious when one reads the
enabling legislation formulating and forever establishing the Park.
Dated August 17, 1937 (50 Stat. 669), provides in part:
Sec. 4. Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be
especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly
swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational
activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such
uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as
a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or
plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which
would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora
and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in
this area . . .
On June 11th, 2008, Senators Elizabeth Dole, Richard Burr and
Representative Walter B. Jones introduced S. 3113 and H.R. 6233. These
bills, if enacted, would put aside the Consent Decree and return CHNSRA
to policy and operation governed by the IMS. This would effectively
take management decisions out of the hands of a few special interest
groups and return it to the professional scientists and staff of NPS at
the savings of millions of taxpayer dollars over the life of the
Consent Decree.
Already these groups assail the media and their members with tales
of doom were these bills signed into law. Some claim that Congress has
no business even dealing with this matter. I beg to differ. Congress
established this Park for the American People as a whole and provided
us with a place we have fought hard to preserve as the unique and
dynamic place that Hatteras is; or was. For years, most of us have
lived by the motto of the Outer Banks Preservation Association,
``Preserve, Protect, Not Prohibit.'' For example, to this day NPS does
not employ ``beach clean-up crews''. We do this at our own time and
expense. This hardly represents a user group with a penchant for
environmental abuse.
Congress reserved the right to change the nature of an established
National Park for itself. And so there is no question as to whether
these bills should be co-sponsored and enacted.
16 U.S.C. Section 1a-1 states, ``The authorization of activities
shall be conducted in the light of the high public value and integrity
of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of
the values and purposes for which these various areas have been
established, except as may have been or shall be directly and
specifically provided by Congress.''
Surely this applies to forced closures as that constitutes an
activity as well. Non-governmental organizations have taken over
scientific management of a national park, an activity (Consent Decree)
not sanctioned by Congress in spite of the obvious ``derogation of the
values and purposes for which these various areas have been
established''.
Furthermore, the Federal Executive Branch Policy governing the
selection, establishment and administration of National Recreation
Areas by the Recreation Advisory Council circular, dated March 26, 1963
states:
Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be
recognized as the dominant or primary resource management purpose. If
additional natural resource utilization is carried on, such additional
use shall be compatible with fulfilling the recreation mission, and
none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to it.
I therefore urge every member of the Senate and House of
Representatives to co-sponsor and foster these bills into law. Sound
science and the weight of law should never be substituted for
supposition and misleading statements.
Please help return our National Seashore Recreation Area to the
true stewards of this resource.
Authors Note: 6/28/2008
I stated earlier that I was unaware of the current American
Oystercatcher numbers at present. According to the most recent
available NPS resource management field report, at this point in time
last year the AMOY American Oystercatcher had attempted 41 nests and
had 17 active or hatched nests. At this point in 2008, they have
attempted 33 nests but have only 16 active or hatched nests. With the
extensive closures, this can in no way be blamed on ORV drivers. This
completely refutes the claims of the aforementioned environmental
groups' press releases that the AMOY is some how miraculously
``bouncing back'' as a result of no ORV traffic.
______
Statement of Oregon Hunters Association, Wilsonville, OR
We are writing on behalf of the 11,000 member Oregon Hunters
Association (OHA). We would like to express our opposition regarding
the legislation that would add approximately 4,000 acres to the Oregon
Caves National Monument (Monument) in southwest Oregon by transferring
land from the U.S. Forest service to the National Park Service. It is
our understanding that the original act creating the monument carefully
considered what was needed to protect the Oregon Caves. The upper
portion of the Cave Creek watershed holding the caves is included in
the 400-acre monument. The proposed acres are in the neighboring Lake
Creek watershed. The proposed addition would increase acreage of the
monument by over ten times.
The lands adjacent to the Monument are popular for deer and bear
hunting, and for upland bird and turkey hunting. According to the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife during the year 2007, 5,505
deer, fall bear and fall/spring turkey hunters spent 39,155 days
hunting in the Applegate Management Unit. We believe that taking away
land from the Applegate Management Unit will in fact have an effect on
hunters having access to this unit.
In addition to the hunting issue, this particular acreage
constitutes a much higher percentage of the `` high-quality'' deer and
bear habitat in the Applegate Unit, especially the portion that lies in
Josephine County. The area is high elevation alpine meadow habitat that
holds far more game than the lower elevation lands that have become
choked with brush since forest management has been halted on Federal
Lands.
It is the opinion of OHA that this land transfer will have an
adverse impact on hunter opportunity because of limited access to the
Applegate unit, which will have an effect on the area's economy that is
dependent on hunter dollars and will also have an adverse impact on the
habitat that sustains the wildlife in this area.
It is for these reasons: hunter access to a very valuable hunting
area, the economic impact of the area and habitat loss that OHA is
opposed to this land transfer.
______
Statement of David A. Perry, Emeritus Professor, Oregon State
University, on S. 3148
My name is David Perry. I am an emeritus professor of ecosystem
studies and ecosystem management from Oregon State University. I
currently reside in Oregon's Illinois Valley. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on this matter.
I strongly support expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument
Boundary as specified in S. 3148.
The Caves themselves are geologically unique and attract large
numbers of visitors each year. As such, they provide a focal point for
the development of an expanded tourist industry in the Illinois Valley,
which is still recovering economically from the sharp reduction in
timber revenues during the 1990's.
The Caves are located in one of the more scenic and botanically
rich areas of the United States. The Monument currently has a few
heavily used hiking trails, and expansion of the boundaries will allow
for more which will almost certainly be well used. Polls taken at the
Monument show that 75% of visitors would stay longer if there was more
hiking available. People who view the caves and stay to hike will spend
longer in the Illinois Valley, benefiting the local economy.
Currently, the grazing lease adjacent to the Monument is
contaminating the water supply. The rancher has been in negotiations
with KS Wild and has agreed to retire the lease without a fight if the
Boundaries are adjusted. There are no losers if the lease is retired,
and 80,000 people per year with an uncontaminated water supply makes
for a lot of winners.
There is some concern that forest fire hazard won't be dealt with
if the NPS takes over the land. In fact, the NPS seems more likely to
address this problem than the USFS, which doesn't have the funds or
personnel to deal with the many fuels reduction needs elsewhere on
their lands.
I summary, I wholeheartedly support expansion of the Monument
boundaries. It is a positive step for the Illinois Valley.
______
Statement of Susan Bondesen & Brian Barton, Williams OR, on S. 3148
We are writing to express our strong support for support for the
Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S.
3148). We agree that too little protection exists for this important
asset that enriches the natural environment here as well as the local
economy. Please seriously consider passing the expansion contained in S
B. 3148. It will benefit all Americans as well as Oregonians.
______
Statement of Michael A. Berry, on S. 3113
I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit written
testimony for the record in support of Senate Bill 3113. As a
knowledgeable and concerned citizen, scientist, retired public
administrator and university educator, I feel it is my professional and
civic duty to make timely comment and to respectfully request that you
pass Bill 3113 out of committee and allow a vote by the Senate.
I am a senior citizen of the United States, residing at 16
Charrington Place, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27517. I hold the
following degrees: Doctor of Philosophy in Public Health from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Master of Science in
Management from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business; both
Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Mathematics from Gonzaga
University. I am a combat veteran of the Viet Nam War and a retired
Lieutenant Colonel, Army Engineers. In my civilian life, I retired from
the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1998 after a 27-year career
with that agency. For over 22 years, I served as the Deputy Director of
the National Center for Environmental Assessment at Research Triangle
Park, NC. During my EPA career I had extensive interactions with
foreign, state, and local governments; the federal courts; US Congress;
universities world-wide; institutions to include the National Academy
of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization; the major environmental organizations; private
industry and trade associations. For more than 20 years, I was an
adjunct or full-time faculty member at the University of North Carolina
where I taught environmental science and management courses in the
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, the Kenan-Flagler
Business School, and Environmental Studies Program. I have in-depth
knowledge of environmental sciences, especially those related to human
health; and the federal environmental statutes, programs, and policies.
I wish to state clearly for the public record that I have been for
the past four decades and remain today and forever in the future,
professionally committed to protection of the environment. I am
primarily concerned with environmental conditions that affect the
health and well-being of humans and with the conservation of natural
resources that are essential components of a healthy environment. Given
the ever changing environmental conditions brought about by growing
human populations and expanding regional and global economies,
effective environmental management is more essential now than ever
before, but never at the expense of violating human and Constitutional
rights.
Responsible environmental management uses sound science and
professional judgment that balances the human needs and rights of
people with the needs to manage and sustain natural processes.
As a public health and environmental management professional, I
will always place the health and well-being of humans first and I will
never accept a political philosophy that suggests people are less
important than other species. Increasingly, ``environmentalism'' places
species ahead of humans. Sadly, this new-age philosophy has crept
deeply into our political process. Humans should never be completely
shut out or deprived of their environment so that other species should
prevail or dominate. With a good understanding of science--knowledge of
how the environment works--humans can make rational decisions and
manage conditions so as to connect with their environment and at the
same time provide for the existence of other species.
The consent decree and settlement that Senate Bill 3113 is designed
to overturn is properly criticized as ``legislating and managing from
the bench.'' Because of the current consent decree and closures, the
public is being pushed out and denied access to its treasured
environment in which it too has a rightful place. The public is being
denied a role and opportunity to suggest ways that an environment that
it cherishes deeply can be effectively managed. The federal government,
specifically the federal judiciary, and Departments of Interior and
Justice, has failed in its duty to protect the Constitutional rights of
the public to have a say in the management of its park environment.
It is not the prerogative of a federal court to give exclusive
decision-making and management rights to three well funded
environmental activist organizations so as to dictate how the general
public and local community will access public land, in this case Cape
Hatteras National Sea Shore, which has a guarantee and tradition of
certain usage rights, including the right to access the beach with a
motor vehicle (ORV).
Traditionally, federal courts interpret and render opinions on the
law and protect citizen rights as spelled out in the Constitution or
the federal statutes. It has been long recognized that Congress and the
courts do not have the technical knowledge or resources to manage
national parks. That is why Congress established the National Park
Service. Park Service professionals are responsible for making
technical judgments and management decisions concerning the peoples'
park.
The park management formula laid out in the consent decree is a new
public policy. This new park policy was put together, in a rush, in
about 10 days, behind closed doors, without any open discussion of
scientific fact, explanation and justification of environmental
management strategies, and consideration of the many needs and desires
of the general public.
In this court-approved settlement, the federal government agrees to
respond to the dictates of three non-governmental special interest
groups for the next three years. These environmental organizations
answer to no one. Citizens cannot even challenge the Park Service or
these non-governmental groups about this management policy. Essentially
this consent decree takes the ``Cape Hatteras National Recreational Sea
Shore and turns it into a national maternity ward and nursery for 5
bird species and turtles.
Every legitimate public policy in our democratic society is based
upon the Constitution. Public policy is intended to provide for the
public good and the rights of persons, which begins with the protection
of citizens and promotes conditions that enhance social well-being.
Citizens have a right to be a part and have a say in the formulation of
governmental policies that affect their lives. However, in this consent
decree, we have public policy created by dictum; the public was simply
directed to behave in special new ways without benefit of comment or
review.
In addition, the consent decree appears to grant special rights to
species overlooking the fact that the Constitution grants rights only
to persons. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants any right
to a bird or turtle.
Only the Congress of the United States can change this situation.
In the April 30 court hearing, the judge acknowledged about five
different times the need for public participation and review, but then,
at exactly 1 hour into the hearing, he completely set aside any public
concern or comment, and signed off on the settlement. The Outer Banks
community interveners had no choice but to go along with the agreement
or have the beach shut down completely. The court knew that and could
have at least opened the settlement to include public hearings or
directed the Park Service to promulgate a final management plan by a
certain date.
This consent decree is a classic example of how not to formulate
environmental policy. It is good example of why good public policy must
always be transparent, provide for public review and comment. The
formulation of good policy takes thoughtful planning and organization,
time for citizen interaction and review, including science review, much
along the lines of what is currently being attempted with the
regulation-negotiation process for a final ORV plan initiated by the
National Park Service at the end of last year.
No reasonable person doubts the need of an ORV management plan for
the National Sea Shore especially in the face of regional population
growth and improved highway systems onto the Outer Banks of North
Carolina.
After many years of Department of Interior foot-dragging, an ORV
regulation-negotiation process was launched earlier this year. Under
the direction of a highly experienced and professionally competent park
superintendent, the National Park Service went out of its way to
encourage public participation in ORV management for the Park.
The environmental activist organizations, who now control a large
portion of the park through consent decree, agreed months ago to take
part, along with dozens of other citizen stakeholders, in a highly
visible process of good faith regulation-negotiation. The primary
purpose of the regulation-negotiation process is to provide factual
information to the Park Service for an effective ORV management plan,
provide equitable consideration of all citizen groups, and avoid costly
litigation. Through their litigation, while sitting as major
participants of the negotiation process, the environmental activists
violated their agreement and indicated beyond any doubt they have no
intention of good faith negotiation.
Within the recent judicial review, no consideration was given to
the desirability and benefits of a publicly transparent regulatory
negotiation process or the breach of agreement and inequity of the
lawsuit. The court has sent a very clear message that it does not care
what the public thinks or has to offer in terms of the effective
management of the national park. This is an insult to citizens who have
taken the time and their personal resources to attend and observe the
regulation-negotiation meetings, sit at the table to negotiate in good
faith, provide factual information and constructive comment to the Park
Service.
The consent decree has been shown to be ``bad public policy'' to
the point of being a ``public nuisance.''
The public has been deprived of public participation and park
access rights. The public has been denied access to a park and
shoreline it owns. Particularly affected now and in the future are the
disabled and elderly members of our society who cannot get to the beach
even on foot.
The consent decree has created enormous public anxiety and outrage.
This new policy has been the catalyst for threats of physical violence,
public disobedience, slander, and vandalism.
Park Service professionals, many having years of specialized
training and experience and decades of faithful public service, have
been stripped of their professional prerogatives to make judgment calls
and deal reasonably and equitably with the public they are sworn to
serve.
The consent decree has contributed to a distrust of government.
Government officers are forced to arm themselves and enforce laws that
they themselves find as disturbing and unreasonably constraining as the
public.
There are unnecessary tensions between citizen groups. Persons who
have some legitimate special interest in bird or nature watching, or
simply walking or sitting on an ORV free region of the shoreline, are
now viewed as the enemy of the ORV or surf-fishing public.
Especially disturbing to me as a citizen soldier of this nation is
that the consent decree establishes a policy of retaliation and
punishment for the general public when violations of the consent decree
occur. Every time there is an act of vandalism, the Park Service is
required, without any management discretion, to significantly extend
boundaries and widen non-access areas. This serves no practical
management need and is simply a ``punishment'', much along the lines of
what I have personally observed and fought against in a police state on
foreign shores. So as to prevent further denial of beach access,
citizen groups have been forced to reach into their own pockets to
offer substantial amounts of reward money for the identification of and
conviction of those who break the law as dictated by the consent
decree.
Visits to the National Park and Outer Banks community are down.
Visitor habits and plans are changing. Already hundreds of trips to the
Outer Banks have been canceled or redirected to other parts of the
country because of actual or threatened beach closures
The local economy has been adversely affected by the consent
decree. Already this policy has produced significant economic harm to
small family businesses. For some businesses, revenues are down 50% or
more and some employees have been laid off. Gas station, restaurant,
and motel revenues are down. Some longtime residents of the island are
planning to relocate.
Risks of ORV and pedestrian accidents have increased as ORVs and
pedestrians are forced into smaller areas. On certain days, there is
limited public parking and unclear direction and access to the
shoreline. The judge himself predicted this in the April 30 hearing.
Damages to sensitive sectors of the Park environment will
increasingly occur as ORVs and pedestrian traffic are channeled into
smaller regions of the Park, overrunning the carrying capacity of those
sectors of the ecosystem.
The closure provisions of the settlement are not based on well-
established science.
The congress and the federal courts have repeatedly directed and
ruled that before the government promulgates environmental regulations,
there must be a hard look at the scientific basis for those rules. This
administrative process principle is the ``Hard Look Doctrine.'' The
science is ``environmental criteria.''
For the federal government to justify the need for resource
management such as that found in the consent decree there must be a
basis in recognized and published science. In this consent decree,
there is a clear and gross absence of well-established scientific
information underpinning all technical aspects of the closure rule.
There is no peer-reviewed science to support the claims of species
loss as the result of ORV traffic. That claim is not verified.
Environmental activists have claimed the loss of species due to ORV
traffic on the beach through press releases.
That is not the way credible science is presented or reviewed.
The court accepted that claim without open court hearing and
examination of expert witnesses.
Given the significant economic consequences and beach access loss
to the public, prior to restrictive regulation, our federal government
owes the public an answer to the following questions about the factual
and scientific basis:
What are the studies, science and protocols used as the
basis for the regulation and its technical content?
Who are the specific authors of those science-based
materials and who do they work for and represent--government,
universities, environmental activists groups?
What is the area of expertise and what are their
qualifications as researchers?
Where can the public acquire the raw or original data used
to create the criteria or science base?
Were the studies on which the criteria based peer reviewed
or published?
Who were the independent peer reviewers?
Where are written copies of their review findings?
What protocols were used to collect the data and were they
ever peer reviewed?
Where, when, and how were the data collected?
What quality control system and statistical analysis process
was used in data collection and presentation?
Questions like these are always asked in open public science review
before an environmental regulation as significant as this one is
imposed upon the public.
Congress should consider mandating that the National Academy of
Sciences review the technical basis for park access closures such as
those in the consent decree.
The protection and production of bird species was the stated and
widely proclaimed justification for court approval of the ``closure''
provisions of the settlement.
Two species of birds, the Piping Plover and the American
Oystercatcher, neither of which are listed by the government as
endangered, are specified in the settlement.
Data published by the federal agencies, prior to the consent
decree, suggests that the piping plover is ``recovering'' on a regional
and national basis. Data in no way suggests that additional beach
closures at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore are essential for the
recovery of the bird. The data indicate that piping plover populations
everywhere are not in decline, as is repeatedly stated by special
interest environmentalist organizations. Piping plover populations are
growing or have at least stabilized even in the most extreme and remote
regions of their range. The number of birds observed in recent times
indicates that conservation efforts, without the consent decree, are
working.
Data collected and published by the Park Service in recent weeks in
no way support the claim by environmentalists that ORVs reduce the
productivity of birds. In fact, the data suggest that the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Interim Management Plan, prepared with public input
and review in 2005, published in the federal register, has been
effective at protecting birds and natural resources.
The Interim Management Plan was set aside by the court and replaced
by the consent decree and settlement that mandated closures. The
closures of recent months have been of exorbitantly high cost to the
public but have not contributed to an improvement in species production
or safety.
Along a 60-mile park coast, only seven piping plovers fledged this
breeding season when beaches were closed to the public. The 15-year
production rate for the piping plover is 0.66 chicks/pair. On July 25,
2008, the Park Service announced that this year's Piping Plover
production level is 0.64. This year's rate is less that the rate when
the Interim Management Plan was in effect and there was beach access by
ORVs and pedestrians. Much is the same for the American Oystercatcher,
out of 27 birds that hatched only 10 have fledged.
The huge closure distances in the settlement keep pedestrians and
ORVs out of nesting areas. At the same time, the closures also provide
for the proliferation and increased free movement of predators. In
effect, the closures encourage predation. The majority of nests and
hatched birds this closure season have been lost to predation, a few to
storms, one at the hands of a university researcher. None has been lost
to ORVs.
For the reasons I have presented in this testimony, I respectfully
request that the committee send Senate Bill 3113 to the full Senate to
be voted upon and return full management of Cape Hatteras National Sea
Shore to the National Park Service.
______
Statement of Joseph Vaile, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Lee
Hippy, Clean Air & Water, Inc., Dave Willis, Soda Mountain Wilderness
Council, Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Erik Fernandez,
Oregon Wild, on S. 3148
Thank you for this opportunity to offer written testimony before
the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources Committee concerning S. 3148, the Oregon Caves
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008. S. 3148 would expand the Oregon Caves
National Monument, designate Cave Creek and its tributaries as a unit
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and also provide
tremendous ecological and economic benefit through the permanent
retirement of the Big Grayback and Billy Mountain grazing allotments.
An expanded Oregon Caves National Monument (OCNM) would (1) include
the surface drinking water supply for the 80,000 visitors annually; (2)
protect additional surface and subsurface natural resources for current
and future generations of Americans; and (3) provide local rural
economic development opportunities.
BACKGROUND ON THE OREGON CAVES NATIONAL MONUMENT
The OCNM is a 480-acre national monument located in the botanically
rich Siskiyou Mountains. The monument is important to the economy and
identity of the local area; the nearest town is named Cave Junction
after the Oregon Caves. Despite being the second smallest unit (in
area) of the National Park System, OCNM receives about 80,000 visitors
annually,. Oregon Caves is the only cave system in the nation with its
particular geologic history. It is one of the few marble caves in the
nation available for public tours and is longest tour cave west of the
Continental Divide. The cave tour route, with its twists, turns,
climbs, descents, narrowness and length is one of the most adventurous
cave tour routes in North America.
A perennial stream, the ``River Styx,'' (an underground portion of
Cave Creek) flows through part of the cave system. The cave ecosystem
provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state
sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared bats and several cave-
adapted species of arthropods found only on the national monument.
While the 1909 proclamation that established the national monument
focused on unique subsurface resources, the significance of the land
surface above the cave must not be overlooked. Surface processes,
especially through the exchange of air, water and food, closely
influence many of the geological and biological processes within the
cave.
Recent discoveries indicate that this network of caverns possesses
a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar
and grizzly bear. Grizzly bones that were found in the cave in 1995
were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old--the oldest known from
either North or South America. The monument preserves an excellent
example of the Siskiyou Mountain's primeval forest: an area with one of
the highest percentages of endemic plants in the country.
THE NEED TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES
When the OCNM was established in 1909, the small rectangular
boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the
years, scientific research and technology has provided new information
about cave ecology, how it is influenced by its surface environment and
related hydrological processes. The current 480-acre boundary is
insufficient to adequately protect this cave system and its unique
contributions to local economies and our national heritage. The
National Park Service proposed expansion numerous times, first in 1939,
again in 1949 and most recently in 1999. Most of the boundary
adjustments proposed in S. 3148 are part of the 1998 General Management
Plan for the monument when the National Park Service deemed the greater
Lake Creek watershed suitable for inclusion in the OCNM.
INCREASING VISITATION AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The boundary adjustment proposed in S 3148 is needed for several
reasons.
A larger monument would increase the monument's visibility and
attractions. This could lengthen visit time of the OCNM leading to
economic development in local communities. The average visit to OCNM is
only 2.5 hours, and the most common question is, ``What can we do after
the cave tour?'' Economic models indicate that if the 2.5-hour average
visit were extended to a one-day visit, local businesses would
significantly benefit from added tourist dollars. (Personal
communication with Craig Ackermann, Superintendent, OCNM, February 20,
2007.) The OCNM is surrounded by excellent outdoor opportunities
including hiking, horseback riding, and bird-watching. Adjacent
recreation opportunities should be protected within the OCNM
boundaries, and marketed along with cave tours. In addition nearby
Forest Service campgrounds would be incorporated into the monument.
The four trails within the current OCNM range from 0.7-3.3 miles. A
number of longer trails around the monument offer visitors stunning
views. Most of the trails weave in and out of the present OCNM
boundary, and some connect with larger hiking trail systems including
the Boundary and Pacific Crest Trails, giving hikers access to the Red
Buttes Wilderness, Bigelow Lakes, Mt. Elijah (named for Elijah
Davidson, the first Euro-American to see the Oregon Caves), and other
popular areas.
Located in the Siskiyou Mountains of southern Josephine County,
OCNM offers great potential for one of the state's most struggling
economic communities by nurturing a budding tourism and recreation
economy. According to a 1994 Illinois Valley Tourism Assessment
developed for the Oregon Economic Development Department, Oregon Caves
is a ``centerpiece attraction'' for the tourism industry in the
Illinois Valley area.
Highway 199, stretching the length of the Illinois Valley, is a
popular travel route between Redwood National Park and Crater Lake
National Park, as well as a corridor for visitors that travel from the
cultural center of Ashland to visit the Pacific Coast, as well as the
OCNM. Surveys conducted in southwest Oregon and northern California
describe visitors to this region to be primarily families taking a
short vacation from the metropolitan areas of Portland, Seattle,
Sacramento, San Francisco, and southern California (Smokejumper Base
Interpretive Plan, undated).
Highway 199 has an annual traffic load of about one million
vehicles. In 1992, the state estimated that 289,000 vehicles, about one
third of the vehicles traveling Highway 199, represented tourist
traffic. Surveys conducted at OCNM indicate that average daily spending
per tourist group is $90. These numbers indicate that more than $26
million in tourism dollars pass through the Highway 199 corridor
annually (Letter to Oregon Tourism Commission from OCNM Chief of
Interpretation Roger Brandt, 18 April 2004). Compared to neighboring
northern California counties, where tourism dollars per tourist group
range from $95-$154 (Sheffield, Emilyn, 1998. Northern California
Scenic Byway Network Newsletter, Chico, California), Josephine County
clearly has room for economic development in this sector.
A 1995 survey of visitors at the OCNM found that the top reasons
for travel were viewing scenery, doing something with the family, and
to learn more about nature. (Rolloff, David, Rebecca Johnson, and Bo
Shelby, 1995). Similar studies have found that people come to Oregon to
indulge in their interest in outdoor recreation, nature experiences and
historic sites (Brandt, 2004).
FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST MANAGEMENT
It has been implied that fuels reduction or other forest thinning
operations would not occur in the adjusted OCNM boundaries (see the
Statement for the Record of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System of the U.S. Forest Service). We strongly disagree with this
assessment. The National Park Service has a very active fire management
and fuels reduction program on units where fire management is an issue.
In fact, there is evidence that the National Park Service is more
equipped and better funded to carry out fuels reduction projects in a
timely and efficient manner due to larger budgets.
Broadly, we agree with the Forest Service that fire and fuels
issues are extremely important on the 1.8 million acres Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest. However, the OCNM boundary adjustments area
(4,070 acres), only constitutes 0.23% of the forest area, an immaterial
portion of the landscape to affect fire behavior. We do agree that the
Forest Service and Park Service should continue collaborating on fire
and fuels reduction projects in this area and we support section 5(b)
of the S. 3148 regarding forest restoration as long as it is consistent
with the National Park Service's Organic Act.
We also strongly disagree with Mr. Haltrop's characterization of
the efforts of the Forest Service in the OCNM area. We are very
familiar with and support of these efforts by the Forest Service, but
the facts presented by Mr. Haltrop are incorrect. Through a
collaborative effort with support from the very organizations providing
this testimony, the U.S. Forest Service produced the East Illinois
Young Managed Stands project. This project looked at a 70,000-acre
project area and identified approximately 4,000 acres for treatment.
Only 100 acres were identified in the OCNM expansion area. No other
treatments have been specifically identified to date.
Moreover, the Forest Service has not yet determined if a timber
sale or stewardship contract for this project will be utilized for this
single thinning unit. A stewardship contract would not produce any
revenue to the Treasury. Thus, it is premature for Mr. Haltrop to offer
figures of the revenue that the Treasury or local counties would
receive. This timber has not been appraised, laid out, offered for bid,
contracted, sold or awarded. With the declining timber market due to
housing slow downs, many sales on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest are not producing bids and many. While the Forest Service has
plans to move forward with thinning in this single unit--which, again,
we support--there are no immediate plans as Mr. Haltrop implies, nor
would this single project solve all of the fire and fuels issues in the
OCNM. We are convinced that the Park Service could perform the
necessary management activities to restore the forests to more natural
fire and fuel conditions on this small portion of the landscape.
GRAZING AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION
KS Wild is also supportive of the provision the bill to provide for
the donation of a Forest Service grazing permit and a Bureau of Land
Management grazing lease. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest's
Big Grayback Grazing Allotment (17,703 acres) overlaps about half of
the 4,070-acre OCNM expansion area. National Park Service regulations
would prohibit continued livestock grazing in the expanded national
monument. Currently livestock that use the Big Grayback Grazing
Allotment tend to concentrate in the Bigelow Lakes area, a designated
botanical special interest area.
Continuing to grazing livestock on the remainder of the Big
Grayback Grazing Allotment is problematic for several reasons. First,
as noted, livestock concentrate in the Bigelow Lakes area. Second,
there are two other designated botanical areas (Miller Lake, 588 acres;
Grayback Mountain, 591 acres) and the Oliver Matthews Research Natural
Area, where livestock grazing occurs, contrary to the purpose of the
protective designation. In addition, there are 3,553 acres of Riparian
Reserves, where livestock need to be limited. Parts of the allotment
are also in the Sucker Creek Key Watershed for salmonid recovery.
Finally, much of the allotment is in the Kangaroo Inventoried Roadless
Area.
Additionally, surface water sources used for the OCNM potable water
supply are located on national forest land. Water is piped to park
facilities where it is treated. Actions affected drainage in the
national forest--upslope from the monument--have the potential to
impact the monument. Activities such as mining, logging, grazing and
stock use, have the potential to contaminate the OCNM water resources
(OCNM General Management Plan, 1999, 8).
The 4,758-acre Bureau of Land Management Billy Mountain Grazing
Lease is on the on the Ashland Resource Area of the Medford District
BLM, approximately 3/4 of a mile south of the town of Applegate in
Jackson County, Oregon. The grazing allotment is leased by the same
rancher that leases the Forest Service's Big Grayback Grazing
Allotment. The allotment is next door to the rancher's base property.
He uses the BLM allotment in the spring and the Forest Service
allotment in the summer.
The Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment includes the Enchanted Forest,
a grove of oak, pine and maple, and a popular hiking trail. The
allotment is interspersed with private land and there have been several
complaints over the years by landowners dismayed by livestock on their
property. Billy Mountain also includes habitat for the federally
protected Gentner's fritillary (Fritillaria gentnerii), a member of the
Lily family. This rare plant is found in the Applegate Valley in and
near allotment. Its growing season includes the period when livestock
may be using the allotment.
Expansion of the national monument makes continued grazing of the
Big Grayback Grazing Allotment very problematic, which therefore makes
continued grazing of the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment also
problematic. Conservation interests (specifically Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands Center) and rancher Phil Krouse have an understanding in
which Mr. Krouse will received compensation from KS Wild in return his
donation of his federal grazing permit and lease to the federal
government, as provided in the legislation.
In the spring of 2008, the Forest Service issued a decision to
continue grazing on the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment for 10 years.
While not reducing the amount of livestock grazing for the allotment,
the decision requires investments in fences and changes in management
to prevent overgrazing of Botanical Areas and to evenly distribute
livestock. To comply with its own forest management plan, the Forest
Service requires a 1/4-mile fence must be built in the Bigelow Lakes
area.
Fencing Bigelow Lakes is controversial from the standpoint of both
conservation and ranching interests because not enough of the botanical
area will be fenced, fences are expensive, often fail and do not last.
Fencing is a bad solution because of the high initial cost ($7,030/mile
according to the Forest Service), as well as the high ongoing
maintenance costs. Fences in forests and deep snow require endless
maintenance; they don't always work and are always an impediment to
wildlife. The agency places additional requirements on the permittee to
keep livestock out of certain areas.
COSTS OF GRAZING
Both the ecological and fiscal costs of various alternatives to
continue livestock grazing on the Big Grayback allotment are such that
the best and least costly option is to simply buyout the grazing permit
and not spend tax dollars endlessly to build and maintain fences.
The annual income to the federal treasury from the Forest Service
grazing permit and the BLM grazing lease is $118.13. The cost of
preparing the Environmental Assessment to update the Big Grayback
Grazing Allotment is at least $100,000. On average, the Forest Service
and BLM lose $12.26/AUM and $7.64/AUM respectively, (GAO, 2005.
Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending
Upon Agency and Purpose of Fee Collection) or an average of $8,174.80
annually. Based on the simple analysis above, the taxpayer would save
an estimated $8,056.68 annually, by not grazing livestock in the two
allotments.
HUNTING
The expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument by 4,070 acres
from 480 acres to a total of 4,550 acres would result in an end of
hunting pursuant to federal National Park System policy. This reduction
in bear hunting opportunities is insignificant.
The reduction of hunting area is insignificant. The proposed
monument expansion is 4,070 acres, which is:
0.55% of the 746,593 acres public (federal, state and
county) land in Josephine County.
0.48% of the 848,395 acres of land in the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife's Applegate (#28) Wildlife Management Unit
(all land between California border, US 199 and I-5). Most of
this land is open to hunting.
0.23% of the 1.8 million-acre Rogue River Siskiyou National
Forest in Josephine, Jackson and Curry Counties, all of which
is open to hunting except campgrounds, etc.
This minor amount of bear hunting area is unnecessary as there are
fewer bear hunters and more bears are being killed.
The number of Oregon bear hunters has declined 21% from an all-time
high of 36,893 in 2001 to 29,077 in 2006. Yet, during the same time
period, the number of bears killed increased 76% to 668 from 379
(``Oregon General Bear Season and Harvest Summary'' in 2007 BIG GAME
STATISTICS, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem).
______
Statement of Alan Front, Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public
Land, on S. 3247
I appreciate the opportunity to express the support of The Trust
for Public Land for S.3247, a bill introduced by Senators Carl Levin
and Debbie Stabenow providing for the designation of the River Raisin
National Battlefield Park in Michigan as a unit of the National Park
System.
The Trust for Public Land (TPL) conserves land for people to enjoy
as parks, gardens, and natural areas, ensuring livable communities for
generations to come. Since 1972, TPL has helped protect more than 2.1
million acres of land in 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada. Among the many land conservation
projects we have worked on are historic sites such as Morristown
National Historical Park, Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military
Park and Monocacy National Battlefield, whose protection ensures that
our nation's unique history can be experienced by generations young and
old, well into the future.
S. 3247 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to work with
willing donors of land in Monroe and Wayne counties in Michigan to
acquire sufficient lands to create the River Raisin National
Battlefield Park. Once established, the park will be only the second
national park unit in the state's Lower Peninsula and within a short
distance from the population centers of Detroit and southeastern
Michigan.
The national battlefield park would commemorate the Battle of the
River Raisin in January, 1813, during the War of 1812. Out of the
hundreds of American participants in the battle during a campaign to
retake Detroit from the British, only 33 escaped death, injury, or
capture. The defeat became a rallying cry for the rest of the war,
which eventually assured American independence and sovereignty.
There is a pressing need to protect lands whose history relates to
the War of 1812 period. In 1996 Congress accurately found that ``the
historical integrity of many Revolutionary War sites and War of 1812
sites is at risk because many of the sites are located in regions that
are undergoing rapid urban or suburban development.'' Nearly half of
the 697 Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites studied in a National
Park Service report delivered to Congress in September 2007 have
already been lost. This vital legislation would ensure that a part of
that heritage would be saved for future generations before it too is
lost.
We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that your subcommittee is examining
this legislation today and support the efforts of Senators Levin and
Stabenow to protect our nation's heritage lands. A companion bill, HR
6470, introduced by Congressman John Dingell, is currently under
consideration by the House Natural Resources Committee and we hope that
Congress can move to final passage of this legislation during the 110th
Congress.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to provide
testimony in support of designating the River Raisin National
Battlefield Park in Michigan.
______
Statement of a Resident of southwest Oregon, on S. 3148
I wish to urge the Committee to quickly report S. 3148 to the House
with a recommendation for passage. As a resident of southwest Oregon, I
am deeply concerned for the future of the Oregon Caves National
Monument. The Monument at present is vastly too small, at 480 acres, to
provide meaningful protections for the Monument's watershed and the
plants and animals it supports.
At the time of the Monument's establishment in 1909, far less was
known about the science of ecosystem management, and the need to
protect full ecosystems, not just individual features or species. The
OCNM does not currently operate as anything resembling such a complete
ecosystem within the present boundaries, and it therefore remains
extremely vulnerable to impacts from cattle grazing and mining claims.
Recognizing this issue, the Park Service has proposed a boundary
expansion several times, most recently in 2000, and yet OCNM remains in
its original, non-functionally small configuration.
The southwest Oregon region has one of the greatest diversities of
plant species in North America, but it does not currently enjoy
protection commensurate with that significance. An expansion of OCNM
would help to provide for that protection, and would address the
immediate problem of cattle grazing in the watershed that drains to the
cave system. This legislation would transfer 4,070 acres to the OCNM
from the Forest Service. The land will enjoy far greater protection in
the custody of the Park Service, as Forest Service lands remain
vulnerable to development and mismanagement.
Again, I urge the Committee to expedite the passage of S. 3148 to
the full House with a favorable report. Thank you.
______
Statement of Paul F. Torrence, Williams, OR, on S. 3148
I wish to state my ardent support for the Oregon Caves National
Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S. 3148). As you are aware,
this valuable geological and ecological treasure presently consists of
only 480 acres. This is not nearly enough to preserve the cave insofar
as the surrounding and contributing watersheds are subject to
activities such as cattle grazing that lead to substantial degradation
of water quality. Insofar as Oregon Caves is a major economic boon to
our area and are such an incredible natural resource, I hope the Senate
will look favorably upon approval of SB 3148, embodying this minimal
expansion previously recommended by the National Park Service.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on legislation vital to
the economic and ecological health of our region here in Southern
Oregon.
______
Statement of the American Forest Resource Council, Portland, OR,
on S. 3148
Thank you for the opportunity to submit the American Forest
Resource Council's (AFRC) testimony on S. 3148, the Oregon Caves
National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008.
AFRC represents approximately 90 forest products manufacturers and
forest landowner companies in the west and the majority of the mill
capacity in the Pacific Northwest. Our mission is to promote
sustainable forest management on our federal and public lands. Many of
our members have their operations in rural communities adjacent to the
federal forests of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest where the Oregon
Caves expansion is proposed. The management on these federal forest
lands ultimately dictates not only the health of the forests, but also
the health and mere existence of forest products companies and, in
turn, the economic health of local communities. AFRC members are proud
to provide thousands of quality, family-wage jobs. We are also
committed to being part of the solution to restore our public forests
while providing Americans with quality wood products and renewable
biomass energy.
AFRC has several concerns with this bill, but the most alarming is
the potential harm to life and property if action is not taken to
reduce the fuel loads in the proposed Oregon Caves expansion area. The
area in question, the Oregon Caves National Monument and the proposed
expansion area, is located in a box canyon with only one access road.
This road dead-ends in the ``box'' of the canyon and is the only exit
out of the canyon. Were a wildfire to start in this area, not only
would the Oregon Caves area be at risk, but also the lives of many
tourists who visit the Oregon Caves in the summer--coincidentally
during the fire season. As elected officials and Oregonians continue to
discuss the need to address Oregon's declining forest health and
introduce federal legislation addressing the issue, we would be remiss
to ignore the potentially dangerous situation in the Oregon Caves area.
The Oregon Caves expansion area is similar in nature to areas that
burned in the 2002 Biscuit Fire. The proposed expansion would transfer
4,080 acres of dry, mixed conifer forests in the Rogue-Siskiyou
National Forest to the National Park Service (NPS). Forests in this
area historically had a very frequent fire return interval (10-50
years) before fire suppression became prevalent. Due to decades of fire
suppression, the forests proposed in this expansion have hazardous fuel
loads that put them at the highest risk of catastrophic wildfire--
condition class III.
If or when fires start in this area, it would be nearly impossible
to keep them as ground fires and they will almost surely turn into high
severity crown fires similar to many areas burned in the Biscuit Fire.
The Biscuit Fire burned 499,965 acres, mostly on the Wild Rivers Ranger
District of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest, which is the same
ranger district for the proposed Oregon Caves expansion. Half of the
Biscuit Fire burned at high severity, killing at least 75% of the
vegetation in its path. Further, roughly three-quarters of the area
that burned was designated wilderness or roadless in which fire had
been suppressed for decades and fuel loads were in the condition class
III category. Density management and fuels reduction work must be done
in this area to prevent unnaturally severe catastrophic forest fires
and protect life and property.
Thankfully, the Forest Service has taken the necessary steps to
plan treatment in these areas. More than half of the acres in this
proposal are included in one of two Environmental Assessments that
approve density management and fuels reduction work, the East Illinois
Valley EA or the Plantation Thin EA (see attached projects map). This
means that these acres have been approved through the NEPA process,
with no appeals or litigation, to be managed to improve forest health
and reduce fire hazard. The NEPA work has already been paid for and the
Forest Service is ready to move forward with work in these stands.
These treatments are desperately needed in the proposed Oregon Caves
expansion to lower the fires regime condition class from condition
class III, where the fire regime has been substantially altered from
natural (historical) ranges. If these treatments do not happen and a
wildfire occurs, these stands would be at a high risk of losing key
ecosystem components due to dramatic changes in one or more of the
following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns.
It's also important to note that 2,740 acres of the proposed 4,080
acres included in the Oregon Caves boundary modification proposal is
classified as ``Late Successional Reserves'' or ``LSRs'' under the 1994
Clinton Northwest Forest Plan. These areas were set aside to create
future late-successional forests (generally what most folks would think
of as ``old growth'' forests) for late succession species, such as the
Northern Spotted Owl. Fuels reduction and density management
treatments, like those contemplated for portions of this area, were
specifically envisioned under the Plan to speed the development of
these characteristics while making stands more fire resilient to avoid
stand replacing wildfire events.
The American Forest Resource Council believes the Forest Service is
best suited to manage the 4,080 acres proposed for transfer to the
National Park Service. Historically and given the mission of both
agencies, the Forest Service has the authority, ability and know-how to
manage the forest appropriately by reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfire through fuels reduction while also helping to speed the
creation of late-successional habitat. If the Congress deems that the
4,080 acres in question must be transferred to the NPS, AFRC believes
at least a 10 year transition period should be legislated. This would
allow the Rogue-Siskiyou Forest time complete the much-needed density
management and fuels reduction projects that have already been through
the NEPA process. Furthermore, AFRC believes the NPS should be given
direction to continue to perform density management and fuels reduction
treatments as needed in this area to maintain forests in an acceptable
fire regime condition class into the future. Most importantly, this
area must be treated to protect the monument and the many tourists that
visit this beautiful part of Oregon.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony.
______
The Monroe Evening News
full speed ahead on battlefield plan (edit)
Copyright, 2008. Published: August 3, 2008
Adding Monroe's River Raisin Battlefield to the national parks
system wouldn't just benefit the Monroe area. It would benefit all
Americans, furthering their love and understanding of U.S. history.
That is the point area supporters of the battlefield proposal tried
to hammer home in a hearing Wednesday before a Senate subcommittee.
The hearing was called on short order and well ahead of schedule.
No doubt the strong support of U.S. Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Dearborn,
and Michigan's U.S. senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, helped.
And perhaps Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, who had his ear
bent by local supporters while in Monroe County on other business last
week, lent his support, too.
We're grateful for the expedited hearing. Still, it would have been
nice to see the same sense of urgency among representatives of the
national parks system at last week's hearing. They recommended that
action on the battlefield proposal be put off, possibly for two or
three years, until a special resource study can be completed.
Excuse us ... two or three years?
That could be a problem. The 200th anniversary of the War of 1812
is just four years off. The Massacre of the River Raisin took place in
1813.
Four years from now, if Americans are fired up about the
bicentennial, they might just want to see key battle sites while on
vacation. Some of them, in fact, might be stoked for a visit here after
touring Gettysburg or other Civil War battlefields during the 150th
anniversary of that celebration.
But what will those visitors find here?
If Washington sticks to the timetable laid out by the bureaucrats,
the nation may miss a crucial opportunity.
Naturally, the feds will want to conduct some studies. But what
happened here in January, 1813, is no secret.
At that time, what was then called Frenchtown was occupied by
Canadians, British soldiers and their Native American allies. A band of
600 American troops forced them out. But a few days later the British
counterattacked, retaking the settlement and forcing Americans to
retreat. And injured Americans left behind by the British later were
slaughtered by the Indians.
That massacre sparked outrage. The resultant rallying cry
``Remember the Raisin!'' helped inspire Americans in the subsequent
battles of the war. In last week's hearing, Sen. Levin and William H.
Braunlich, president of the Monroe County Historical Society, drew a
comparison to the cry ``Remember 9/11'' that sprang up after the Sept.
21 terrorist attacks.
Much of the spadework for a national park at the battle site
already has been done--literally as well as figuratively. More than $5
million already has been spent on land acquisition, environmental
cleanup, archaeological probes and other efforts. As Mr. Braunlich
noted, 40 acres already are under title to public or nonprofit
agencies, all of which are prepared to transfer title to the federal
government.
Another War of 1812 battle site, Fort McHenry in Baltimore, already
is part of the national park system. The fort's survival of a fierce
British naval bombardment inspired ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' In
addition to the fort, there is a visitors' center with a gift shop and
a small auditorium, a statue and a swath of green next to the water
suitable for picnics. The River Raisin Battlefield doesn't have a fort
or a national anthem behind it. It does have a visitors' center and
auditorium. But it is historically important and surely worth a modest
upgrade by the feds before the bicentennial. Local supporters want to
make it a gift to the American people. Washington ought to accept the
gift in a timely manner.
______
Statement of Hon. Les AuCoin, Ashland, Oregon, on S. 3148
I am writing in support of the Oregon Caves National Monument
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S. 3148), introduced by former
colleague, Senator Ron Wyden.
The National Park Service recognized the unique ecological and
hydrological resources of the Oregon Caves when the Oregon Caves
National Monument was established in 1909. In the years that followed,
many recognized that these resources required a larger boundary than
the 480 acres covered under the inaugural designation. Unfortunately,
repeated recommendations over the decades to expand the boundary were
fruitless--including, I am sad to note, my own terms in Congress. I am
pleased that Senator Wyden has given us an opportunity to finally give
this natural treasure the protection it warrants.
In 1939, Monument staff recommended a boundary expansion to
conserve the upper Lake Creek watershed, to provide greater
recreational opportunities such as hiking and horseback riding, and to
protect the geological and botanical features, and views of the rugged
Siskiyou Mountains, one of the most unusual ranges in the lower 48
states.
When that recommendation was unsuccessful, another boundary
expansion was proposed in 1949. An interagency committee comprised of
U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the National Park
Service sent a memorandum to the NPS Regional Director that stated, in
part, ``In 1936 an extension of Oregon Caves National Monument would
have been highly desirable and far-sighted; in 1949 it has become
urgent.''
Now comes this most recent recommendation for expansion, which was
in the NPS' General Management Plan of 2000.
Clearly the time is past due to expand the Monument boundary from
its current miniature 480 acres to an ecologically-based boundary that
would protect the entire Cave Creek watershed. The relationship between
the terrestrial surface and the caves cannot be overemphasized, yet it
was barely understood, if at all, in 1909. Surface processes and the
exchange of air and water closely influence cave ecology. If we want to
protect the Oregon Caves in perpetuity, we must protect its watershed
and the landscape above them.
There are many extraordinary attributes of the Oregon Caves
National Monument, including the longest marble cave open to the public
west of the Continental Divide, the underground River Styx, unique
geology, globally significant botanical diversity and a valued
collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly.
In addition to the ecological and geological value of the Oregon
Caves, the Monument provides an important economic engine for rural
communities in Josephine County. The Monument is a destination for
nearly 100,000 visitors a year, and is a critical source of revenue for
local businesses in Cave Junction and the greater Illinois River
Valley. An expanded Monument, well timed with its centennial
anniversary celebrations, would bolster visibility and visitation in an
area that benefits greatly from tourism.
I am happy to see that S.3148 includes a provision to retire the
grazing allotment in the watershed, which has caused water quality
concerns, including contamination of the Monument's drinking water
supply, for decades.
As a resident of southwest Oregon and a former Member of Congress
who represented Oregonians for 18 years, I encourage the committee to
advance this legislation as soon as possible.
______
Statement of Larry Hardham, President, Cape Hatteras Anglers Club,
on S. 3113
Thank you and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
submit written testimony for the record. My name is Larry Hardham,
president of the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club since 1999. The Cape
Hatteras Anglers Club has just over 1000 members (current on their
dues) residing in 26 states. Many of our members live here on the Outer
Banks and have volunteered for years in beach clean-ups, interpretive
programs and as lighthouse docents here at the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore. I personally have over 1000 volunteer hours with both Cape
Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
(PINWR).
I write you to express the concern of our membership about the
effects of the court ordered decree and a request to return control of
the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CHNS) back to the National Park
Service (NPS) and its Interim Strategy via Senate Bill 3113.
The United States Congress authorized the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreation Area in 1937 and 1941. The NPS has seen fit to drop
Recreation Area from the name of the seashore without Congressional
approval. Vehicular access to beach areas has been and is allowed due
to the long distances from the few parking areas at the Seashore and
has become required by visitors (especially the handicapped and elderly
citizens). In 1978, through a public process an Off Road Vehicle (ORV)
Plan was developed, but NPS never followed through with a listing in
the Federal Register and we were left in non-compliance with two
Executive Orders. CHNS implemented an Interim Protected Species
Strategy in 2007 which also went through a very public process with an
Environmental Assessment, and was issued a Biological Opinion by USF&W
and a Finding of No Significant Impact by the NPS. Also in 2007, a
Negotiated Rule Making Committee was formed to develop an ORV Plan for
CHNS and comply with the 35 year old Executive Orders. In early 2008,
several members of the Negotiated Rule Making Committee (Defenders of
Wildlife and National Audubon Society represented by a third member
Southern Environmental Law Center) brought a law suit against NPS and
USF&W based on the lack of an ORV Plan and the perceived lack of
protection of sea turtles and selected birds under the Interim
Strategy. The resulting court ordered decree imposed extremely large
closures (such as 1000 meters on either side [or the equivalent total
of over 21 football fields] of a piping plover chick where the Piping
Plover Recovery Plan suggests only 600 meters), unwarranted night
closures and closure expansion penalties for closure violations. The
court ordered decree was issued without a public process, without
considering the true economic impacts to the eight villages located
within CHNS, the surrounding communities or NPS costs and manpower
required for implementation.
Please consider that the ``only 12 miles of beach'' closed (as
these three environmental groups refer to this summer's closures) are
the most popular beaches in the Seashore and accommodated growing
numbers of birds and limited public access under the Interim Strategy
in 2007. In fact, according to USF&W the reproductive success in the
entire state of North Carolina for piping plovers in 2007 was ``one
chick fledged for every four (4) pair of nesting adults''\1\ while at
CHNS under the Interim Strategy four (4) chicks fledged from six (6)
pair of nesting adults\2\ or a significantly higher rate than the
entire state.\3\ The Interim Strategy allowed for recreation closer to
nesting areas. Breeding pairs of American Oystercatchers increased in
2007 as compared to 2006 from 23 to 24\4\ but went down again in 2008
to 23.\5\ More Oystercatcher chicks fledged in the three year period
ending in 2007 than the prior two three year periods.\6\ North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) reported that an island (Cora June
Island) only one quarter of a mile behind Hatteras Village ``was home
to one of the largest mixed tern/black skimmer colonies in the state
with good numbers of nesting adults that successfully fledged hundreds
of chicks.''\7\ Populations of gull-billed terns, common terns and
black skimmers are down in the state and the seashore, but these three
environmental groups have claimed that these populations of birds on
this nearby island ``do not count'' because the island is not
technically within the boundaries of CHNS. This does not make sense, is
poor birding and biased bad science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ``Field Notes Volume 2, Number 5
Fall/Winter 2007'' page 11 at www.fws.gov/nc-es.
\2\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field
Summary week of August 10-16, 2007.
\3\ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ``Field Notes Volume 2, Number 5
Fall/Winter 2007'' page 11 at www.fws.gov/nc-es.
\4\ Slide presentation given to Negotiated Rule Making Committee by
Ted Simons, Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC on June 17, 2008.
\5\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field
Summary week of June 19-25, 2008.
\6\ Slide presentation given to Negotiated Rule Making Committee by
Ted Simons, Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC on June 17, 2008.
\7\ N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission News Release:
www.ncwildlife.org/news_stories/pg00_NewsRelease/
020408_waterbird_survey.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court ordered decree was signed late in the day on April 30,
2008 and piping plover adults were already at CHNS and in fact had
started nesting.\8\ NPS data indicates that the eleven breeding pairs
that ultimately nested at CHNS in 2008 were already here on April 30th
and were a result of successes last year. The 2007 Interim Strategy
allowed 67%\9\ of piping plover breeding pairs to fledge a chick but
this year under the court ordered decree only 64%\10\ of breeding pairs
fledged a chick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field
Summary under heading of Piping Plover Observations for weeks of April
3-April9, 2008 through June 19-25, 2008.
\9\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field
Summary week of August 10-16, 2007.
\10\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field
Summary week of July 17-23, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This nesting season found even more black skimmers than last year
reproducing on the spoil island (Cora June Island) one quarter of a
mile behind Hatteras Village. Neither the NPS nor the NCWRC counted
birds, nests or chicks on Cora June Island in 2008 but photos show the
island to be covered with adult birds and chicks.
In 2007 twenty-four (24) breeding pairs\11\ of American
Oystercatchers hatched 15 nests and 29 chicks.\12\ In 2008 twenty-three
(23) breeding pairs hatched 15 nests and only 26 chicks.\13\ Thus the
court ordered decree produced fewer breeding pairs and fewer chicks
from the same number of nests. This result was in spite of
significantly larger closures which prevented recreational use of the
beaches involved. Some closures were even put in place for pairs that
never nested due to the fact that they were not of breeding age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Slide presentation given to Negotiated Rule Making Committee
by Ted Simons, Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC on June 17, 2008.
\12\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field
Summary week of August 3-9, 2007.
\13\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field
Summary week of July 17-23, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to CHNS Resource Management Weekly Field Summary; July17,
2008 to July 23, 2008 there have been 92 sea turtle nests laid and 82
false crawls at Cape Hatteras National Seashore producing a false crawl
to nest ratio of 0.89:1. This is a good ratio but higher than that at
CHNS in six of the last ten years. One of the goals of the Interim
Strategy Biological Opinion is for this ratio to be under a 1.3:1. The
court ordered decree imposed a ban on night time driving between 10:00
PM and 6:00 AM in an effort to reduce false crawls using the
undocumented assumption that ORV headlights cause false crawls at the
Seashore. Not only are there no eye witness reports of headlights at
the sites of false crawls at CHNS, but at least 24 of last year's false
crawls were inside the Cape Point piping plover closure\14\ (where no
human activity is allowed day or night). The false crawl to nest ratio
at CHNS for the last ten years (1998-2007) is 0.94:1 which is under the
accepted normal ratio of 1:1.\15\ This ten year ratio at CHNS of 0.94:1
is even lower than that of Cape Lookout National Seashore (0.95:1)\16\
and CHNS has eleven miles of village ocean frontage, three ocean piers
and far more visitors. Furthermore, Pea Island, which is the northern
13 miles of Hatteras Island, and has no ORV use, day or night or
pedestrian use at night, had more false crawls than nests last year and
as of July 21, 2008\17\ has a higher false crawl ratio this year
(0.94:1) than here at the CHNS. The assertion that night time ORV use
causes false crawls at the CHNS is just not born out by the facts. The
92 nests laid at CHNS so far this year is more than last year but
nesting activity all along the coast of NC has also increased, and in
fact Pea Island has more nests as of July 21, 2008 than it has had
since 1995.\18\ In summary, the court ordered decree is not responsible
for a lower false crawl ratio or more nests in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 Sea Turtle Annual Report
page 13 under caption: False Crawls
\15\ Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 Sea Turtle Annual Report
page 8 and 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports
\16\ See Chart #2 attached
\17\ Personal communication from Dennis Stewart, Chief Biologist,
Pea Island national Wildlife Refuge
\18\ Personal communication from Dennis Stewart, Chief Biologist,
Pea Island national Wildlife Refuge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the NPS visitation website\19\ the total recreation
visits at all NPS facilities through June 2008 are down 1.20% while
visits at CHNS are down 14.5%. Such a reduction in the numbers of
visits equates to economic losses, loss of jobs and tax revenue for
local, state and federal governments. The Outer Banks has been fairly
immune to downturns in the economy in the past, and thus the decrease
in visitors this year has been dramatic and many businesses feel that
it will get worse in the next two years if the court ordered decree
remains in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ www.nature.nps.gov/stats
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see the increases in fledged chicks of all species or
sea turtle nesting has not been produced by the court ordered decree
and the economy has been very negatively impacted. With this in mind
please vote for Senate Bill 3113 and allow the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore to again be managed by the National Park Service and not the
courts.
Thank you.
[Charts have been retained in subcommittee files.]
______
Statement of Dare and Hyde Counties, NC and the Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance, on S. 3113
lawrence r. liebesman,\1\ partner, holland and knight llp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lawrence R. Liebesman is a Partner in Holland & Knight's
environmental practice and has over 30 years experience as an
environmental lawyer and litigator including 11 years as a Senior Trial
Attorney at the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources
Division. He is the co-author of the Endangered Species Deskbook
published by the Environmental Law Institute.
We are outside counsel to Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina,
and to the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (``CHAPA'')
(collectively ``Intervenors'') in Defenders of Wildlife et al. v.
National Park Service, No. 2:07-cv-00045 BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2008).
The following information supplements the July 30, 2008 testimony of
Warren Judge, Chairman, Dare County Board of County Commissioners on
S.3113. Our submission today is also intended to address comments of
those opposed to the bill.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, for example, Testimony of Derb Carter on Senate Bill 3113,
Southern Environmental Law Center (July 30, 2008)(``Carter Test.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Intervenors Dare County, Hyde County, and the Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance reluctantly signed the Consent Decree as
the ``lesser of two evils''
While it is true that the Counties and CHAPA signed the consent
decree on April 30, 2008, it is a mischaracterization to call that
signing a ``willing'' participation. When caught ``between a rock (the
consent decree) and a hard place'' (the uncertainty of an injunction),
any reasonable group will take the lesser of two evils--and that is
exactly what the Intervenors did by reluctantly signing on to the
consent decree.
To understand Intervenors' dilemma, you must first understand the
context in which the consent decree was entered. Prior to the filing of
the lawsuit by Plaintiffs, the federal judge who entered the consent
decree stated in two written opinions that as a result of an executive
order entered by President Nixon, driving in the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore (``Seashore'') was illegal until an off-road vehicle (``ORV'')
management plan was implemented by the National Park Service (``NPS'').
Based upon those findings, Intervenors were faced with the prospect
of the entire Seashore being closed until the negotiated rulemaking
process is completed in 2011. With the underlying possibility of a
total Seashore closure, Plaintiffs filed suit in October, 2007, and
then began negotiating with the NPS on the terms of an injunction for
the Seashore. Even after the court permitted Intervenors to intervene
in the suit, they were not provided with the full settlement proposals
exchanged between Plaintiffs and NPS until the basic framework of an
injunction had been agreed upon by the Plaintiffs and the NPS. In
reality, Intervenors only first saw the actual proposed consent decree
at the ``eleventh hour''.with literally a few days left before the
decree was to be filed with the court and after the other parties had
been negotiating ``behind closed doors'' for weeks. Intervenors
protested the secretive nature of the negotiations to the court at the
preliminary injunction hearing: ``Our real concern, unfortunately, is
that we feel that most recently we've been cut out of what we think
have been ongoing settlement discussions . . . .'' Hearing on Mot. for
Prelim. Injunct., Tr. at 17 (Apr. 4, 2008). Indeed, on Friday April 18,
the day that the proposed decree was to be filed with the court, the
Government only gave Intervenors thirty minutes to agree to changes
worked out between the Government and Plaintiffs regarding buffer
distances; if not, the decree would be filed without them and would
include buffer distances three times larger than in the Interim Plan
approved in July 2007 after a lengthy public process. If the
Intervenors refused to sign, they would be faced with the worst-case
possibility of the court closing the entire Seashore. At best, if the
court accepted the decree proposed by the Government and Plaintiffs--
with the significantly greater buffer distances--the Intervenors faced
having to challenge the decree in court--a ``daunting'' prospect, given
that the NPS had refused to contest Plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction and the court's apparent inclination to issue
such an injunction.
Thus, Intervenors, representing the interests of the people and
organizations most affected by the closures, decided to sign a decree
that was essentially negotiated without any meaningful public input and
was the lesser of all evils; Intervenors simply could not take the risk
of a full Seashore closure. The result was summed up by Allen Burrus,
Vice Chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners: ``Am I happy
with this plan? No.'' (Apr. 16, 2008), available at http://
www.co.dare.nc.us/Announce/CHORV/BeachDrivingProposal.htm.
2. Scientific studies do not prove that the Interim Plan was harmful to
wildlife
Opponents of S.3113 would have the subcommittee believe that
previous NPS management, including the Interim Plan, combined with ORV
use was the root cause of all wildlife population fluctuations. See,
e.g., Carter Test. at 3 (July 30, 2008)(first year of Interim Plan
``was one of the worst bird breeding seasons on record''). This
Subcommittee should know that experts refute those assertions.
In a detailed statement filed with the court, Intervenors'
biologist Lee Walton stated that ``all measures of nesting success
recorded by the National Park Service was better for the last 3-year
average when compared to the previous 13-year average. I believe that
the recent success of piping plovers on Cape Hatteras is due to the
implementation of beach closure similar to the protective measures'' in
the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy. Walton Dec., Summary
at 8 (Mar. 12, 2008)(Attachment 1). Predation and weather losses are
the most importance factors regulating population increase and nest
success at the Seashore. Id.
As Mr. Walton noted, the Atlantic Coast population of the
threatened piping plover, for example, has more than doubled and has
averaged a 5% annual population increase between 1986 and 2007. Walton
Dec. at 10. NPS data show that piping plover numbers are increasing
in North Carolina. Id. at 11. For other colonial waterbirds, it
appears that the populations are neither trending upward or downward
but, rather, simply shifting to nearby shoals and islands. Id. at 16.
3. In issuing the Interim Plan, the NPS took into account the United
States Geological Survey Protocols and properly balanced those
Protocols with other legal and practical considerations
Opponents of S.3113 claim that the restrictions in the consent
decree ``are also based on the best available science, including the
United States Geological Survey (``USGS'') recommendations.'' See
Carter Test. at 5. These opponents neglect to mention that the Interim
Plan's Finding of No Significant Impact/Environmental Assessment
(``FONSI/EA'') actually referred to those Protocols but noted that the
NPS had to take into account broader policy goals.\3\ Indeed, the
Interim Plan was developed after a two-year investigative process that
took into account the USGS protocols, public comments, the NPS's field
experience during the 2006 breeding season, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (``FWS'') Biological Opinion, NPS professional judgment, and
other information. FONSI/EA at 4-5.\4\ The FWS's issuance of a
Biological Opinion, concurring with the Interim Plan under the
Endangered Species Act, is especially noteworthy in that, as the expert
federal agency, the FWS was in the best position to object to the Plan
as not in compliance with the USGS protocols.\5\ Further, the NPS has
been implementing the conditions of the FWS Biological Opinion and has
even been conducting renewed consultation to address FWS's issues. Yet
Plaintiffs chose to litigate despite the ongoing orderly and scientific
process underway between the NPS and FWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The FONSI on the Interim plan stated that ``The USGS protocols
were prepared under an interagency agreement for the Seashore by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS is the scientific research
agency for the Department of Interior. The information and
recommendations presented in the protocols represent the professional
opinion of scientists that analyzed and interpreted the scientific data
associated with protected species found at the Seashore. In addition to
the Protocols, many other factors such as federal laws and mandates,
NPS management policies, public input, practical field experience, and
other scientific opinion were considered in the development of the
strategy/EA.'' FONSI/EA at 5, n.2. (emphasis supplied).
\4\ As Mr. Walton noted, ``an enormous amount of effort was
expended reviewing the scientific literature . . . studying the local
seashore conditions and negotiating with agencies, user groups, and
interested parties to develop this detailed plan.'' Walton Dec. at
19.
\5\ Mr. Walton disputes the use of the USGS protocols for projected
species, stating that it ``is not biologically warranted and will not
necessarily provide protective measures for piping plovers.'' Walton
Dec. at 26. These protocols ``do not consider changes in suitable
habitat from year to year or if the habitat is occupied by piping
plovers.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Recent biological data does not support the assertion that the
consent decree is benefiting wildlife
Further, recent biological data does not support the claim by
opponents of S.3113 that the consent decree is already having a
positive effect of wildlife. Carter Test. at 6. We attach a letter from
Larry Hardham, president of the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club that updates
and supplements his comment letter of July 27, 2008, to Chairman Akaka
(please see Attachment 2--additions to his prior letter are
underlined). Mr. Hardham notes that any piping plover ``success'' was
due to actions taken last year. That is, by April 30, the date the
consent decree was signed, plover adults were already at the Seashore
and had already established nests. Hardham Suppl. Letter at 3. Last
year, under the Interim Plan, 67% of piping plover breeding pairs
fledged a chick but this year under the court-ordered decree only 64%
of breeding pairs fledged a chick. Id. Further, Mr. Hardham notes that
the slight increase in the number of fledged plover chicks this year
was more likely due to the fact that the Seashore hired a full time
trapper for predator control, rather than using the services of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture trappers for several weeks as was done
in 2007. Hardham Suppl. Letter at 3.
Despite the overall positive trends cited earlier, the American
Oystercatcher and turtle have less-than-positive news. Last year, 24
breeding pairs of American Oystercatchers hatched 15 nests and 29
chicks with 14 nests lost to weather and predation; this year--after
the consent decree--23 breeding pairs hatched 15 nests and only 26
chicks with 19 nests lost to weather and predation. Hardham Suppl.
Letter at 3. ``Thus, the court-ordered decree produced fewer breeding
pairs and fewer chicks from the same number of nests. This result was
in spite of significantly larger closures which prevented recreational
use of the beaches involved.'' Id. For turtles, the consent decree has
not led to a lower false crawl ratio or more nests in 2008. Id. at 4.
Mr. Hardham's supplemental letter also addresses the claim that the
consent decree helped increase the numbers of nesting colonial shore
birds such as black skimmers. Carter Test. at 7. He notes that ``both
common terns and black skimmers nested within the actual boundaries of
[the Seashore] in 2008 but all of these nests were within the piping
plover pre-nesting closures of the Interim Strategy or within least
tern closures and thus their return to [the Seashore] can not be
attributed to the Consent Decree.'' Hardham Suppl. Letter at 2.
Further, Plaintiffs incorrectly assume that the consent decree was
necessary because ORV use and related public uses directly cause the
decline in wildlife populations over the years. In fact, the data
demonstrates that more plover chicks fledged on North Carolina beaches
with heavier ORV use than on North Carolina beaches with light ORV use.
Walton Dec. at 14.
5. The consent decree is having a negative effect on the area's economy
While Plaintiffs claim that the consent decree only affects ``small
stretches of the Seashore's beaches,'' Carter Test. at 5, the fact is
that those small stretches include some of the ``most popular beaches
in the Seashore'' and thus have impacts disproportionate to their size.
See Hardham Suppl. Letter at 2. Tourism is suffering in part because
vacationers have the impression that all beaches are closed down. In
fact, the six most popular fishing areas in the Seashore--and arguably
on the entire east coast--were shut down earlier this summer. Testimony
of NPS Deputy Director Daniel Wenk (July 30, 2008). Bait and tackle
shops and other businesses are reporting a sharp drop in sales. The
Virginian-Pilot (Aug. 4, 2008), available at http://
www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/08.04.2008-
VirginianPilotEditorialSlamsLegislationWhatTheySaidAndWhatWeSay.html.
Even if it were shown that the consent decree has had no economic
impact, the true measure will be next year's sales figures. Since this
summer's vacation bookings were made long before the consent decree was
signed, disappointed vacationers would have been unable to get out of
their rental contracts. See Irene Nolan, Commentary: Virginian-Pilot
editorial slams legislation: What they said and what we say, available
at http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/08.04.2008-
VirginianPilotEditorialSlamsLegislationWhatTheySaidAndWhatWeSay.html
(Aug. 4, 2008). As Mr. Hardham notes, ``Many of this year's cottage
renters who became unhappy and disappointed due to the extensive
consent decree mandated closures (which produced poor results and
completely closed the most popular sites in the Seashore) may not
return in future years.'' Hardham Suppl. Letter at 4.
Further, it is undisputed that there was a significant decline this
year in visitation at the Seashore in June, the period when expanded
closures were in effect. This decline was far greater than the overall
decline at other NPS facilities during a comparable period. ``According
to the NPS visitation website, the total recreation visits at all NPS
facilities through June 2008 are down 1.20% while visits at [the
Seashore] are down 14.5%. Such a reduction in the numbers of visits
equates to economic losses, loss of jobs and tax revenue for local,
state and federal governments.'' Hardham Suppl. Letter at 4.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Further, opponents of S.3113 cite to a 2008 government-
contracted study concluding that 2.7 to 4 % of the approximately 2.5
million visitors to the Seashore are ORV users and that ``9 % of the
visitors to the Seashore would return more often if driving were
restricted on the beaches.'' Carter Test. at 7. However, that data was
taken from pages 2-14 and 2-17 of an unpublished study--the ``Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Visitor Use Study,'' by Dr. Hans Vogelsong
(Aug. 2003)--that was discredited by peer reviewers as part of the
ongoing Negotiated Rulemaking process. The peer reviewers stated that
Vogelsong could not ``provide a sound scientific basis for estimating
ORV use at [the Seashore] or the economic impact of visitor spending
associated with ORV use.'' Jim Gramann, PhD, Summary of Reviewer
Comments on Two Reports Analyzing ORV use at Cape Hatteras national
Seashore at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Interim Plan will protect the Seashore's interests better than
the consent decree
The resources of the Seashore are more than its wonderful
collection of birds, fish, and sandy beaches. Indeed, the Seashore
encompasses the people whose towns and livelihoods have evolved along
with the Seashore. Those people and towns survive on tourism, and
tourism is driven by ORV use. As NPS Deputy Director Wenk correctly
pointed out in his testimony before this Subcommittee, ORV use predates
the 1937 authorization of the Seashore. Wenk Test. at 2. See also,
Warren Judge Test. at 1-6 (tracing the legislative history that created
the Seashore with an eye towards the recreational and commercial
benefits historically enjoyed by the residents of the Outer Banks).
In fact, even the Seashore's Superintendent recognizes the
financial strain that the consent decree has placed without clearly
demonstrating that the decree has actually led to increased success
rates for protected species. In a recent Coastland Times front page
story, Superintendent Murray noted that ``For the 2008 nesting season
in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, some critical numbers are up
but it is impossible to attribute increases only to the implemented
consent decree.'' Mary Helen Goodloe-Murphy, COASTLAND TIMES (Aug. 12,
2008); see Attachment 3. He then noted that ``implementing the consent
decree through August 6 has cost $316,117 above what would have been
spent operating under the Interim Strategy. The Seashore will bring in
another law enforcement team to help with Labor Day at an estimated
cost of $37,000.'' Id.
Obviously, everyone cares about the Seashore's natural resources--
especially the local citizens who ultimately make their living
dependent upon its economic and environmental health. Maintaining
public support and confidence is critical to achieving these goals.
Unfortunately, the consent decree severely undermines critical local
support achieved through the lengthy and open public process of
adapting the Interim Plan. It has also imposed a substantial additional
financial strain on the National Park Service without any demonstrable
benefit to resources of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
______
Statement of Barbara Ullian, Grants Pass, OR, on S. 3148
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
I've lived and worked in southwest Oregon since 1947. I began
hiking in the area of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests
encompassed by the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment and the area of the
proposed expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument in the 1960's.
This is one of those special places that draw people from across the
county and from many backgrounds.
The often-eloquent notes of appreciation left in the Mazama box--
placed on Mt. Elijah's summit each season by the National Park Service
staff--were evidence of this. The ``box,'' a large plastic jar with
paper and pencils, was an informal guest book for the mountaintop.
Hikers wrote out their thoughts as they surveyed the 360-degree view of
the wild country laid out before them. Most of the notes--left over
several decades--were about the beauty of the area. Many also wrote in
dismay or anger about the growing number of clearcuts in the watersheds
below and the impacts of cattle grazing.
This beautiful high elevation land of peaks, forests and meadows is
entirely suitable for inclusion into the National Park system as part
of the Oregon Caves National Monument--to be restored and managed under
the Park Service's conservation mandate. It's certainly not suitable
``rangeland'' as the Washington DC office of the National Forest
Service would have you believe in their testimony (see below).
When I first began hiking the area there was a drift fence at the
top of the watershed divide to prevent cattle from accessing the Lake
Creek watershed and the springs and wet meadows above Bigelow Lakes
that serve as the headwaters for Lake Creek, the Oregon Caves National
Monument's drinking water source. The presence of the fence also
provided a cattle-free respite for those hiking the high backcountry of
the Siskiyou. Unfortunately, this ridge top fence was abandoned.
I've hiked on trails through the high mountain meadows, literally
ankle deep in fine choking dust, which coated everything, because the
cattle also used the trails. After long hot dusty stretches of trail,
I've found that the cattle had fouled the only available clean water in
miles--the cold springs emanating from the side of Craggy Peak--and
churned the surrounding wet areas into a mud bog. When cross county
skiing in the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area, I've had to avoid the
meadows--where the best snow and views were--because of the dangerous
tangle of downed wire drift fencing hidden beneath the snow. Even in
the summer the un-maintained drift fence was a hazard. It didn't
prevent the cattle from reaching the lake but did prevent
recreationists from fully enjoying the area. The trampling, cow feces
and flies, often made inviting shady areas above Bigelow Lakes
inhospitable places to camp or rest. We camped on rock outcrops
instead--where cows didn't go.
My photographs of the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area and the Craggy
Mountain Research Natural Area have been published and used in efforts
to conserve the outstanding ecological, scenic and recreation values of
this part of Klamath-Siskiyou Bioregion. I've also photographed the
results of the Forest Service's ``single-use'' cut-slash-and-burn
management of the watersheds and forests surrounding the tiny Oregon
Caves National Monument. I'd be happy to provide the National Parks
Subcommittee with photos, both demonstrating the overall beauty of the
area and the deleterious effects of past Forest Service management.
Beginning in 1987, I've participated in Siskiyou National Forest
and wild and scenic river planning processes, including the Siskiyou
National Forest's response to American Rivers and Oregon Rivers
Council's administrative appeal of the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest
Plan referenced on the final page of Deputy Chief Joel Holtrop's
written testimony. The settlement agreement for the appeal was signed
in 1991. I have it and other documents describing the process still in
my files (see additional information below).
I've cut and pasted from the National Park Service and National
Forest Service's July 30, 2008 written testimonies, as submitted to the
Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and highlighted their direct quotes. My response
follows.
1. Big Grayback Grazing Allotment--Compatible Uses and the Siskiyou
National Forest Plan
The Forest Service believes that grazing is an environmentally
compatible use within this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest. (National Forest Service testimony)
Siskiyou National Forest Plan direction for Botanical and Research
Natural Areas contradicts this statement. The area of the Big Grayback
grazing allotment, which covers both Rogue River and Siskiyou National
Forest lands, includes several Botanical Areas and a Research Natural
Area (RNA). The RNA is known as Craggy Peak on the Siskiyou National
Forest (SNF) side and Oliver Matthews on the Rogue River National
Forest side. The Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area is entirely on the
Siskiyou National Forest and managed under the SNF Plan's standards and
guidelines. It is part of the area proposed expansion of the Oregon
Caves National Monument. The Botanical Area is in the headwaters of
Lake Creek, upstream of the Monument's sole source of potable water,
used by both the visiting public and Park Service staff.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consolidated comments submitted on March 8, 2008 by the Pacific
West Region of the National Park Service concerning the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest's Environmental Assessment for the Big
Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update (on file with the author).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRAGGY PEAK RESEARCH NATURAL AREA
The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan's
(LRMP) management goal for Research Natural Areas is the
``[p]reservation of naturally occurring physical and biological units
where natural conditions are maintained . . . '' Page IV-81. Domestic
livestock grazing is prohibited in Research Natural Areas by the SNF
LRMP. Page IV-82. Despite this, 19 years after the SNF LRMP was
finalized, the Craggy Peak RNA is still grazed by the cattle of the Big
Grayback allotment.
ELKHORN PRAIRIE--WHY GRAZING IS NOT A COMPATIBLE USE
The Big Grayback grazing allotment includes Elkhorn Prairie on the
border of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. Elkhorn
Prairie was reviewed for Research Natural Area designation during the
SNF planning process. It's part of a larger area of high elevation
cells around Craggy Peak. Cells are the basic units that must be
represented in a natural area system. Cells in the Craggy Peak/Elkhorn
Prairie area include: herb lands (grass balds), cold springs, green
fescue meadows and red fir/white fir interface. Despite the fact that
it filled needed cells, Elkhorn Prairie was ``not recommended'' as an
individual RNA or as part of the Craggy Peak RNA ``because of the high
degree of disturbance and domestic animal use.'' 1989 SNF Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), page F-2.
SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST BOTANICAL AREAS AND BIGELOW LAKES BOTANICAL
AREA
The management goal for Siskiyou National Forest Botanical Areas is
``to protect, preserve, and enhance the exceptional botanical features
of these areas.'' SNF LRMP, page IV-87. The LRMP prohibits ``livestock
grazing'' in Botanical Areas ``except where such use is part of an
existing allotment.'' Id. at page IV-88. The LRMP further states that
the ``Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area is the only recommended Botanical
Area with an existing grazing allotment (Big Grayback Grazing Allotment
. . .).'' Id. at page IV-89.
Specific to the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area, the SNF LRMP requires
that cattle ``shall be prevented from reaching the Lakes area by a
drift fence'' and requires that ``[t]he effects of grazing shall be
monitored and corrective action taken as necessary.'' Id. at page IV-
89. The SNF Plan FEIS further explains the direction to monitor the
effects of grazing on the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area to specifically
included the effects of grazing on botanical values:
[The Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area] is within a grazing
allotment (Applegate Ranger District). The impacts of grazing
on botanical values needs to be assessed. Page F-35.
While the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest recently began
monitoring ``forage'' levels in the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Areas, the
agency has yet to fully monitor or ``assess'' the impacts of grazing on
the ``botanical values'' of the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area.
Additionally, because the agency did not implement the required
monitoring, no baseline of the botanical values present when the
Bigelow Lake Botanical Area was designated have ever been established.
Therefore, current statements about the effects of grazing on the
Botanical Area are meaningless. Species may have disappeared
unbeknownst to the agency. Additionally, 19 years after the SNF LRMP
required that cattle be prevented from reaching the Lakes Area by a
drift fence, there is no fence and cattle are grazing the Lakes Area,
the headwaters of the Oregon Caves National Monument's drink water
source.
NATIONAL FORESTS, MULTIPLE USE AND COOPERATION
Consequently, the Forest Service opposes [section 7] ... However,
the Forest Service also recognizes the value of working cooperatively
and collaboratively with local stakeholders to fulfill its multiple use
mission on Forest Service lands. (National Forest Service testimony)
The Forest Service's multiple-use mandate does not require that
every acre of the forest be managed for every desired product or
amenity. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 531(a). The SNF LRMP's prohibition of grazing
in Botanical and Research Natural Areas is evidence that the Forest's
Service's multiple use mandate does not require grazing on every acre
of the National Forest and in particular this high mountain area.
Additionally, under the Forest Service's Organic Act, National
Forests were established, in part, to secure favorable conditions of
water flows. 16 U.S.C Sec. 475. As noted above, the Lake Creek
Watershed, including its headwaters in the Bigelow Lakes area, is the
sole source for drinking water for the visiting public and staff at the
Oregon Caves National Monument. The Forest Service has not worked
cooperatively or collaboratively with the National Park Service to
address their concerns about grazing of cattle in the watershed. This
can be seen in the March 8, 2005 comments the National Park Service
submitted to the RR-SNF on the 2005 Environmental Assessment for the
update of the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment and the fact the Park
Service was not named as a cooperating agency in either of the two
recent RR-SNF's Environmental Assessment's on the Allotment update,
despite the National Park Service's ``special expertise'' and concerns
regarding the safety of the Monument's sole potable water supply.\2\ 40
CFR Sec. 1501.6. See also item #2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The March 8, 2005 comments on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest Big Grayback Grazing Allotment Update Environmental Assessment,
submitted by the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service state
that: ``Currently, public water supplies for the [Oregon Caves
National] Monument are obtained from surface water sources. Drinking
water for the Monument visitors and staff is supplied by a diversion
from Lake Creek approximately one and one-half miles to the northeast
of the Monument boundary. ``The watersheds above these diversions are
managed by the USFS. Land use includes logging and cattle grazing,
which create concern for future water quality impact to these water
sources . . .'' (emphasis in the original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Lack of Interagency Coordination to Ensure Protection of the Oregon
Caves National Monument's Public Drinking Water Source
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not believe that either
of the bill's primary purposes, enhanced protection of resources or
increased public recreation opportunities, would be effectively
achieved by its enactment. We believe that interagency coordination is
the best and most effective means not only to enhance resource
protection and recreational opportunities . . . (National Forest
Service)
If this statement were accurate, it would not have taken the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest 17 years to update the Big Grayback
Grazing Allotment (Allotment), prepare an environmental assessment
(EAs) and issue a decision notice (DN) and finding of no significant
impact. Further, the EAs and DNs the RR-SNF did issue would have
reflected the concerns of the National Park Service about cattle
grazing in the watershed of the Oregon Caves National Monument's only
viable potable water source--used by both public visitors and staff.
Additionally, the Forest Service has yet to comply with the
requirements of the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Plan with regard to
the Allotment in the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area. The long history of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process concerning the Big
Grayback Grazing Allotment, demonstrates a lack of concern for Park
Service interests and a failure by the RR-SNF to coordinate with the
National Park Service to ensure the safety of the Monument's drinking
water supply.
In 1991 the Rogue River National Forest (RRNF) issued public notice
that they would prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to update the
Big Grayback Grazing Allotment (allotment) and began scoping. In 1995
the RRNF finally issued an EA for the update but no decision document
was ever issued.
In 1998 the National Park Service finalized the Oregon Caves
National Monument's General Management Plan. The NPS Plan included
expansion of the Monument to encompass the Lake Creek Watershed, in
part, to protect the Monument's only available domestic water source,
which is on RR-SNF land. The allotment includes part of the Monument's
proposed area of expansion, the Monument's potable water source and the
watershed of that water source.
In 2003, the now combined Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RR-
SNF), began yet another scoping process for the still-not-updated
allotment. In February of 2005 the Forest Service finally issued a
second EA for the allotment update for public comment and in September
of 2005 they issued a third and revised EA along with a Decision Notice
and Finding of No Significant Impact. In other words, it took the
agency 14 years to issue a decision on the proposal to update the
Allotment.
More importantly, despite the National Park Service's considerable
and well documented interest in its domestic water source and area of
proposed expansion, the Park Service was not named as a cooperating
agency in the EA to update the allotment. Moreover, the Forest
Service's 2005 EA on the update of the Allotment and its Decision
Notice failed to accurately represent the National Park Service's
concerns about the Allotment and the safety of its public water supply.
On March 8, 2005 the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service
submitted consolidated comments on the EA for the Allotment update\3\
to Erin Connelly, Applegate District Ranger of the RR-SNF stating that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Pacific West Region of the National Park Service's
consolidated comments include those of John Leffel, Public Health
Consultant for the National Park Service, Pacific West Region--Seattle.
. . . the NPS continues to strongly oppose the practice of
allowing cattle access to the [Lake Creek] watershed due to the
increased risk of introducing pathogenic organisms such as E.
coli0157H:7 and Cryptosporidium parvum . . .
The presence of grazing cattle within the Lake Creek
watershed and NPS intake will allow an increased risk of human
pathogenic organism to enter the Oregon Caves National
Monument's drinking water supply (emphasis added) . . .
Therefore it is highly probable that allowing grazing cattle
within the watershed will increase the risk of introducing
biological and more importantly pathogenic organisms into the
Oregon Caves National Monument watershed (emphasis in original)
. . .
. . . any other alternative that allows cattle to access the
Bigelow Lakes and Lake Creek area adjacent to the Monument's
domestic water source does conflict with the proposed actions
in the Oregon Caves National Monument General Management Plan
(emphasis in original).
Despite the National Park Service's concerns about cattle grazing
in the Lake Creek watershed, the RR-SNF selected alternative allowed
the grazing of the watershed, with only a drift fence to that will
purported prevent cattle from reaching the larger of the two Bigelow
Lakes. In other words, the headwaters springs, creeks and the smaller
of Bigelow Lakes are still subject to the cattle grazing.
3. Siskiyou National Forest's 1991 Wild & Scenic River Screening
Process
None of the four rivers included partly or entirely in the current
Monument expansion proposal were found to meet the criteria for
eligibility at that time. The Forest Service would suggest that, at
minimum, the segments within the proposed expansion area be re-
evaluated for their eligibility for the NWSRS. (National Forest Service
testimony)
The referenced wild and scenic river screening process undertaken
by the Siskiyou National Forest (SNF) in 1991 was cursory and
undertaken by the agency only upon an administrative appeal of its 1989
Forest Plan. Decision's regarding the eligibility of streams on the SNF
have never subject to public review or challenge under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Moreover to this date, the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest has yet to complete the terms of the
1991 Settlement Agreement and prepare suitability studies for the few
streams that the SNF Supervisor found eligible to be added to the
National Wild and Scenic River System.\4\ These suitability studies
would have triggered a NEPA process on the decisions made by the
Forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 1991 Settlement Agreement between American Rivers, Oregon
Rivers Council and the Siskiyou National Forest (signed by John F.
Butruille, Regional Forester for Region 6) states that ``suitability
studies will be target for completion by the end of fiscal year 1996.''
Copy of the settlement agreement is on file with the author of this
testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As per the June 1991 settlement agreement between American Rivers,
Oregon Rivers Council and the Siskiyou National Forest, the Forest
Service agreed to ``evaluate for potential eligibility'' the
tributaries of the Illinois and other rivers on the Siskiyou National
Forest.\5\ The final settlement agreement was transmitted to Thomas J.
Cassidy, Legal Council for American Rivers on or about July 15, 1991.
The initial screening was scheduled for completion by the end of
calendar year 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cave Creek is a tributary of Sucker Creek, which in turn is a
tributary of the East Fork Illinois River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service documents indicate that 425 streams were evaluated.
The ``screening process'' was to be done by three ID teams of no fewer
than 5 members each. Team members were asked to gather and review
existing information prior to the first scheduled team meeting when
they would discuss eight resource categories for each of the streams.
Expectations were that teams 1 and 2 would complete the process (which
included documentation) in two meeting days and team 3 within a day.
All process papers and final recommendations were due to the Forest
Supervisor no later than July 26, 1991. Assuming that the screening
process did not begin until the final settlement agreement was signed,
the SNF allotted approximately eleven days for the initial screening of
425 tributary streams on the Siskiyou National Forest, which included
evaluation and documentation of eight resources categories on each
stream. The final decision on potential eligibility of the 425 streams
was made by the Forest Supervisor.
Ultimately, the Forest Supervisor selected only twelve of the 425
streams as potentially being eligible for inclusion into the National
Wild & Scenic River system. Additionally, two streams were to be re-
evaluated for their eligibility. In later decisions, made between 1992
and 1994, the Forest Supervisor determined that 6 of the 12 potentially
eligible streams were in fact eligible to become wild and scenic
rivers. None of these decisions have been subject to review under the
NEPA.
4. Fuels Reduction Projects in Proposed Monument Expansion Area
We understand that the Forest Service is currently working on a
multi-year effort to reduce fuels under a comprehensive forest plan,
which is intended to help restore the appropriate role of fire in the
ecosystem, which in turn would benefit monument resources that are at
risk from fire and fire suppression damage. (National Park Service).
Currently the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is using
commercial harvest in a coordinated, multi-year effort to reduce fuels,
both around the immediate vicinity of the Monument and across the
larger watershed and landscape. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest plans for approximately 1550 acres of fuels treatment projects
within the proposed expansion area. Four hundred and forty acres will
be treated over the next several years. Of those acres, approximately
100 acres will be treated by commercial harvest with volume estimated
at 560 thousand board feet and an appraised value of approximately
$168,000. The remainder will be treated non-commercially. These
treatments are designed and implemented to help restore the historic
role of fire in this ecosystem and will help ensure that the forest
attributes intended for the LSR, including bigger, older, more fire
resistant trees, remain intact. (National Forest Service testimony)
On August 17, 2007 a Decision Notice and FONSI were issued for the
East Illinois Valley Managed Stand Project. The Environmental
Assessment and Decision are on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
(RR-SNF) website--http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/
planning/e-illinois-v-mg-stands-prj.shtml. The project proposes to
treat approximately 3,000 acres of managed stands on Siskiyou National
Forest lands. Part of the 3,000 acres is within the proposed Oregon
Caves National Monument (OCNM) expansion boundaries. The Forest Service
testified that:
It's likely that the referenced 440 acres in the OCNM
expansion boundaries is part of the East IV Project. The rest
of the 1,000 plus acres referenced in the National Forest
Service's testimony may be part of a future project.
Rather than deferring the expansion of the OCNM boundaries, a
``cooperative'' agreement between the Park Service and Forest
Service could be sought to permit the East IV Project to be
implemented, while leaving restoration on the additional
acreage for the Park Service to carry out. I don't believe
there's anything that prohibits fuels reduction and forest
restoration projects on newly acquired National Park Service
lands. Indeed, the National Park Service has implemented fuels
reduction projects in the forests of the OCNM.
5. Hunting
If the bill is enacted, we understand from the National Park
Service that hunting would be prohibited from the 4070 acre proposed
expansion area. (National Forest Service)
Almost the entire 1.8 million acre Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest--minus the 4070 acres of the Oregon Caves National Monument
expansion--will still be available for hunting. The only exceptions are
areas where the discharging of firearms is prohibited due to safety
concerns. These include established campgrounds, several high-use areas
along several Wild and Scenic Rivers and across rivers and roads.
______
Statement of John Patterson, President/CEO, Monroe County Convention &
Tourism Bureau, Monroe, MI, on S. 3247
I am writing in support of S. 3247, the River Raisin National
Battlefield Act, which would designate sites related to the Battles of
the River Raisin during the War of 1812 as a unit of the National Parks
System.
You have heard repeatedly the value of this property and its legacy
to the communities of Monroe County, Southeast Michigan and our United
States resulting from its prominent role in the War of 1812. I would
like to offer additional testimony in support of this outstanding
effort and this exceptional piece of our history.
Tourism is the #1 industry in Michigan and one of the most
significant to our businesses, citizens and organizations here in
Monroe County. Over 20 million visitors pass through Monroe County each
year from throughout the nation and around the world, taking with them
an impressive perspective of our community and wonderful experiences to
share with family, friends and business associates. Nothing is more
important or makes a greater impact, than the hands on ``experiential''
time they spend here.
In addition to the wonderful hands on promotional opportunities we
have with these 20 million visitors and the impact we make on their
lives during their time here, we enjoy the economic impact of their
visits as well. It is estimated that tourism is a half billion dollar
industry in Monroe County. With two major interstates passing through
our County north and south and a major state highway dividing it east
and west, intra county travel is both easy and desirable. Cabela's
``The World's Foremost Outfitter'' in Dundee, for example, on our
western border and Lake Erie on our eastern border offer attractive
destinations for travelers and citizens alike. Events like the Monroe
County Fair that attracts over 150,000 during its weeklong run and the
River Raisin Jazz Festival that attracts over 50,000 during its
weekend, are examples of tremendous community events that continue to
grow and add to our quality of life and attractiveness to visitors.
The magnitude of historic attractions in Michigan like The Henry
Ford, Mackinac and others, attract millions of visitors as well. Our
Monroe County Historical Museum (one of the finest Gen. George A.
Custer exhibits in the nation), Navarre Anderson Trading Post
(Michigan's Oldest Residence) and the River Raisin Battlefield and
others offer equal historic appeal in Monroe County. All this, makes
the significance of the River Raisin National Battlefield a must for
continued Economic & Cultural growth and development for the benefit of
our Nation, our Great Lakes State(s) and our communities here in Monroe
County. I urge you to support S.3247 and look forward to assisting with
the promotion of ``The River Raisin National Battlefield''.
______
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
Cave Junction, OR, November 15, 2007.
Linda Duffy,
Siskiyou Mountains District Ranger, Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest, 6941 Upper Applegate Road, Jacksonville, OR.
Dear Linda, Thank you for meeting with me at the Grants Pass
Interagency office to discuss the update for the Big Grayback Allotment
Management Plan. As discussed. our current position is consistent with
written comments submitted by the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S.
Public Health Service for the initial environment assessment (EA). The
proposed update change of moving the allotment boundary far enough so
as to not cover the public water supply intake is minor and would not
significantly affect compliance with allotment stipulations. It appears
that there are no substantive modifications from the previous EA that
would appreciably change overall potential impacts to the public
drinking water supply. Therefore, the comments provided by the NPS for
the initial environmental assessment are unchanged.
Although there is no evidence of movement of non-native Phytopthora
lateralis (PL) via cattle, there is evidence for spread through non-
human activity (bear wallow) in the allotment (reference paragraph 1.
Page 111-47). This indicates transmission through livestock would be
possible. The percentage of infected areas also is expected to
substantially increase by the end of the century, thus increasing the
likelihood of spreading PL to the Monument which at present is PL free.
Recently published studies from Texas A&M University indicate a
prevalence of Leptospira bacteria occurrence nationwide in cattle
herds. According to the study the bacteria is spread most frequently
and efficiently through urine. There is a potential contamination of
the Monument's public water and nearby surface water by the Leptospira
species of the bacteria known in Oregon from cattle urine. The disease
caused by this genus, leptospirosis, can cause severe intestinal pain
and high fever in humans. It can be acquired by drinking contaminated
water or by transmission through mucous membranes or open cuts.
Although filters and chlorine treatment may prevent this disease from
affecting users of the public water supply, the predominance of cattle
feces and urine in areas that hikers from the Monument use to access
upper Bigelow Lakes could pose a risk. Leptospirosis and ways to
mitigate this potential impact were not addressed in this EA.
In the original analysis the presence of cattle on the Monument was
not considered an issue as the last evidence of cattle trespass was at
least four years prior. However, in the last two years cattle
defecations have been found in the upper elevations of the Monument.
This is of special concern to the NPS due to the presence of a plant
association (willow/American sawwort) designated in Oregon as rare by
the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. It is also one of the largest
disjunct populations of Saussurea americana that has not been seriously
degraded by cattle grazing (Rolle May, Personal communication 1993).
Cattle readily use roads and trails and could find their way to this
meadow via well-used park trails. Sausurea americana was listed in the
update as a rare plant in the area covered by the allotment but
potential effects from cattle on this plant and its association were
not addressed in the EA.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this action and will
continue to work closely with you and your staff to identify and
mitigate potential impacts to the Monument's visitors and resources.
Sincerely,
Craig W. Ackerman,
Superintendent.
______
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
Crater Lake, OR, August 17, 1996.
Mary L. Smelcer,
District Ranger, Applegate Ranger District, Rogue River National
Forest, 6941 Upper Applegate Road, Jacksonville, OR.
Dear Ms. Smelcer: Thank you for considering our comments on the
``The Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update--Environmental
Assessment.'' Although the Big Grayback Environmental Assessment (EA)'s
public comment period ended on October 28, 1995, we feel that new
information in regard to Cryptosporidium merits additional comments.
I have enclosed a copy of a memorandum from Phillip Pollard
expressing concern with potential Cryptosporidium contamination of our
public water supply. Mr. Pollard is the U.S. Public Health Service
consultant assigned to the Seattle office of the National Park
Service's Pacific West Field Area. Mr. Pollard is concerned that
selection of an alternative that does not exclude cattle from the Lake
Creek watershed would represent a significant threat to our public
water supply that could not be eliminated by our existing water
treatment system.
Only alternatives 2, 4 and 5 address the impact of livestock
grazing on Cave Creek below Bigelow Lakes, the area where the potential
for water quality impacts (Cryptosporidium and turbidity) to the Oregon
Caves water supply is highest. The Monument's resource management
specialist and other staff members have made numerous trips along Lake
Creek and to the Bigelow Lakes area from 1988 to 1996. During these
trips it was observed that cattle were just as likely to be grazing
alongside Lake Creek as to be grazing on the shores of the Bigelow
Lakes. If successful, fencing of Bigelow Lakes only (Alternative 2)
could increase impacts on Lake Creek by diverting cattle to that area.
Additionally, slope failures, possibly due to roads, occurred above
Lake Creek in the early 1980s in the form of debris torrents and flows.
This led to the temporary condemnation and shutdown of the public water
supply for the Caves because of turbidity that reached two orders of
magnitude above allowable levels for safe drinking water. The slope
failures have moved a great deal of easily erodible sediment to Lake
Creek. This material could be remobilized by cattle movement. Some of
these areas have been reseeded with grasses that attract cattle. We
have observed a correlation between periods of high turbidity in the
Cave's water supply and the time when cattle have been seen grazing
alongside Lake Creek.
The decision on The Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update--
Environmental Assessment'' should further consider potential impacts on
public health. The presence or absence of Cryptosporidium in Lake Creek
should be established. Common to all alternatives should be monitoring
of Ctyptosporidium.
The National Park Service prefers all alternatives that would
eliminate or greatly reduce the impacts of livestock on Lake Creek,
including Alternatives 2, 4, and 5.
Sincerely,
Craig Ackerman,
Superintendent.
______
Memorandum
To: Superintendent, Oregon Caves National Monument
From: Public Health Consultant, Pacific West and Alaska Field Areas
Subject: Protection of Watershed
July 10, 1996.
I have recently become aware that cattle grazing may be authorized
by the Forest Service in the watershed from which the domestic water
for the Oregon Caves National Monument public water system originates.
As you know, the water source for this system is Bigelow Lakes which
flows into Lake Creek. An intake is installed in Lake Creek, and water
flows by gravity to the park water treatment plant. At the plant, water
is filtered through a 50-micron automatic backwashing Filtomat
prefilter, through a 25-micron automatic backwashing Filtomat
intermediate filter, through a 5-micron cartridge polishing filter, and
finally through a 3M giardia barrier filter bag. The treated water is
continuously disinfected with chlorine, ,end then flows into storage
and distribution. The potential of cattle in the watershed poses a
significant threat to this public water system from contamination by
cryptosporidium.
Cryptosporidium is a protozoan parasite that can live in the
intestines of human and animals. The infection can be transmitted
through person-toperson or animal-to-person contact, ingestion of
fecally contaminated water or food, or contact with fecally
contaminated environmental surfaces. In the environment, the organism
is protected by an outer shell called an oocyst. Once ingested, the
organism emerges from the shell and infects the lining of the
intestine. Ingesting this organism causes an illness called
cryptosporidiosis that results in symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea,
vomiting, fever, headache, and loss of appetite. Diarrhea is usually
watery and accompanied by abdominal cramping. There is no drug or
treatment for this disease. People with healthy immune systems will
recover on their own. People with HIV or AIDS, cancer and organ-
transplant patients taking immunosuppressive drugs, and people with
genetically weakened immune system are especially vulnerable. To these
people, cryptosporidiosis is a life threatening disease.
An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis occurred in Milwaukee in 1993
causing illness in 400,000 people and death to approximately 100. This
outbreak was traced to water from the municipal water plant that comes
from Lake Michigan. An outbreak has also occurred in Medford that
treats surface water from Big Springs. Cattle had been allowed in that
watershed. Lntbreaks have also occurred in Clark County Nevada, in
Georgia, in Washington, and Minnesota.
The public health community, and drinking water officials including
American Water Works and state regulators, recommend a multiple barrier
approach to keep oocysts out of tap water. this includes source water
protection in the watershed, optimized treatment, and a sound
distribution system. At ORCA we have optimized treatment with the 3M
filter bag, which has been shown to effectively remove a large
percentage of oocysts, and the ORCA distribution system has good
integrity and is not susceptible to contamination. What remains, then,
is to protect the entire watershed from which the source water flows.
I recommend you take appropriate measures to assure cattle are not
allowed to graze in the Bigelow Lakes watershed.
Phillip F. Pollard.
______
Statement of Sean Smith, Regional Director, National Parks Conservation
Association, on S. 3148
On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), I
write in support of S. 3148--the Oregon Caves National Monument
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 which was introduced by Senator Wyden.
In 1998, the National Park Service (NPS) completed a general
management plan that calls for the expansion of Oregon Caves NM by
roughly 3,400 acres. According to the Park Service the expansion will
better protect the monument's cave hydrology, surface forest
environment, public water supply and park viewsheds. S. 3148 will make
that recommendation a reality.
The Oregon Caves NM expansion will better protect the monument's
ecology and wildlife with little or no cost ro the federal government
since no private lands need to be acquired. All land proposed for the
monument expansion is already owned by the federal government within
the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Transfer would merely require
Congressional authorization.
The Oregon Caves expansion should also produce significant economic
benefits for gateway communities. Research shows that national parks
are huge economic engines, generating $4 in value for every one federal
dollar invested in them. Park gateway communities have higher economic
growth rates than non-park communities. The Oregon gateway communities
of Cave Junction and Grants Pass will clearly benefit from the expanded
national monument.
Oregon Caves National Monument is a northwest gem, and expansion of
its boundaries as recommended by the Park Service management plan will
make it an even better place for the public to learn, to enjoy and to
be inspired. NPCA urges the committee's support of S. 3148.
______
Statement of Shane Jimerfield, Executive Director, Siskiyou Project,
Grants Pass, OR, on S. 3148
The Siskiyou Project is a 501 (3) (c) public interest organization
with 1,500 members that has been seeking protections for the Siskiyou
Wild Rivers Area for the past 25 years. We have offices near Cave
Junction, and in Grants Pass, Oregon. We proudly give support for the
Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S.
3148). The Act will allow for better management of the area immediately
surrounding the Oregon Caves National Monument by expanding the
boundary to encompass lands which provide water and ecological
integrity to the current Monument. Additionally, it will designate Cave
Creek and its tributaries as a unit of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System and also provide tremendous ecological and economic
benefit through the permanent retirement of the Big Grayback and Billy
Mountain grazing allotments. The expansion is long overdue and is a
logical way for the federal government to meet the changing needs of
the American public.
The Oregon Caves national Monument (OCNM) is a destination for
80,000 visitors a year and is a critical source of revenue for local
businesses in the Cave Junction area. The expansion would provide
opportunities to better market the world class scenery, geologic
wonders, historic buildings, and better manage the unique hydrology and
plant diversity. Current ``multiple use'' management by the Forest
Service cannot meet the needs of today's sophisticated tourists that
expect ``National Park'' quality experiences when visiting areas
managed by the Park Service.
The OCNM and proposed expansion area includes underground rivers,
high elevation meadows and forests of rare flowering plants, sensitive
wildlife, unique cave-adapted arthropods, and conifer and deciduous
tree diversity. From the headwaters of Bigelow Lakes below Mt. Elijah
to the campground at Cave Creek a true National Park quality landscape
exists--a landscape worthy of considerable protection to ensure that
future generations of Americans continue to enjoy its rare and
remarkable values.
BIGELOW LAKES: A BOTANICAL SPECIAL INTEREST AREA
Above the Caves in the high Siskiyou Mountains are the Bigelow
Lakes. Formed in a glacial cirque the lakes are surrounded by meadows
and primeval forests. Ancient species of Brewer's Spruce and rare
flowering plants inhabit the area as relics from the ice age. Due to
its unique characteristics the area has been given special botanical
area designation. However, the Forest Service has done little to manage
for and protect this valuable resource.
The Park Service has a proven track record for managing natural
areas. For example, a rare botanical, the California globe mallow,
which grows in the area, requires periodic burning to germinate its
seeds. The Park Service would be able to meet the plants needs with
prescribed burning. Currently, the Forest Service emphasizes cattle
grazing which is harmful to the plant and is contributing to the need
to list the plant under the Endangered Species Act.
The expansion would open the door for Park Service nature tours in
the upper Lake Creek watershed and evening presentations at Caves
Campground that would better inform the American public about the role
of fire in western forests, climate change, and the need to protect
native plant diversity.
A small change administration authority would yield many benefits
far into the future.
______
Statement of Alexander Brash, Regional Director, National Parks
Conservation Association, on S. 2535
On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), I
write in support of S. 2535--the Martin Van Buren National Historic
Site Boundary Revision Act which was introduced by Senator Clinton.
In 2003, the National ParkService (NPS) completed a Boundary Study
that calls for the expansion of Martin Van Buren National Historic Site
by approximately 261 acres. According to the Park Service, the
expansion will allow the NPS to protect nationally significant
resources and provide visitor access to the original home and farm of
the eighth President of the United States. The expansion will also
provide space not in the historic core for long overdue permanent
facilities. S. 2535 will make the recommendations of the NPS Boundary
Study and the wishes of the local communities a reality.
The Martin Van Buren National Historic Site expansion will preserve
open space in a region where it is quickly disappearing and help tell
the rich agrarian stories of our national heritage. Visitors will have
access to the original Van Buren Farm, thus gaining a better
understanding of President Van Buren and the significance of farming in
American history. The land surrounding the Martin Van Buren National
Historic site currently remains in its historic agricultural use, but
is not yet interpreted for the public. The New York State Historic
Preservation Office, The Open Space Institute, as well as the local
community, support the boundary adjustment proposal.
The expansion of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site
demonstrates creative planning and collaboration to preserve a region's
historic character in a way that is compatible with modern growth and
development. With the proposed expansion, most of the land will remain
under private management and not be removed from the county tax base.
The preservation of these cultural resources as national park land will
benefit the local Town of Kinderhook, Columbia County, and New York
State, where the economy, in part, is based on tourism. Research shows
that national parks are huge economic engines, generating $4 in value
for every one federal dollar invested in them. Park gateway communities
have higher economic growth rates than non-park communities. The New
York gateway communities of Kinderhook and Columbia County will clearly
benefit from this expanded national historic site, financially as well
as culturally.
Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is a northeastern national
historic jewel and expansion of its boundaries as recommended by the
NPS Boundary Study will make it an even better place for the public to
learn, to enjoy scenic beauty and historic treasures, and to be
inspired. NPCA urges the committee's support of S. 2535.
______
Statement of Bill Mandulak, Chairman, Coastal Conservation Association
North Carolina, Raleigh, NC
The Coastal Conservation Association North Carolina wants to
correct a mistake in the letter we previously sent you. The
recreational saltwater license sales drop for Dare County was correctly
stated as 50% but the statewide drop in sales was incorrectly stated as
25%. The correct statewide drop in license sales was 39%. Dare County
was the largest seller of saltwater licenses in 2007. They are now
eighth in the state,
I apologize for the incorrect data.
______
Statement of Richard G. Micka, Monroe, MI, on S. 3247
The Subcommittee on National Parks and Parklands has scheduled a
hearing on Senate Bill S. 3247 this Wednesday (7.30.08).
As Co-Chair for the Experiential Tourism Task Group, War of 1812
Bicentennial Steering Committee, Community Foundation of Monroe County,
Michigan, and as a member of the Michigan Commission on the
Commemoration of the Bicentennial of the War of 1812, I offer my
support for this legislation.
As you know, the State of Michigan has been hit hard by the housing
crisis and loss of manufacturing jobs. Our Governor, Jennifer Granholm,
has created a ``Transformation Initiative'' that will place the State
of Michigan on the path to economic recovery.
One of the planks in her platform is cultural economic development
(CED). The creation of the RIVER RAISIN NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK in
Monroe and Wayne Counties, Michigan, provides a Community CED Readiness
Initiative for both counties promising tourism-related jobs. One
illustration of this point is the $17M investment by the State of
Michigan at Sterling Sate Park on Lake Erie adjacent to the River
Raisin Battlefield that attracts over one millino visitors a year. This
is a $28M boost to the local economy on an annual basis for overnight
visitation.
Finally, Senator Carl Levin has championed the NORTH COUNTRY
NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL. This legislation provides the missing link for
that Park Service Initative. Monroe County, Michigan, is in a
juxtaposition between two of the world's largest metropark systems--the
Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority (Michigan) and the Toledo-Lucas
County Metroparks (Ohio). The Park Service can play an important role
in connecting these metropark systems through Monroe County which is
the GATE WAY to Michigan and Michigan's only County on LAKE ERIE.
Both Monroe County and Wayne County have heritage resources that
would benefit from the Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program. The Trail from the proposed Battlefield (150 acres)
to Sterling State Park (1,200 acres) will be universally accessible,
thanks to a grant from the Kellogg Foundation.
We need S. 3247 to sustain the momentum of the Governor's
transformation initiative.