- LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 306, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COROLLA WILD HORSE FUND, CURRITUCK COUNTY, AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF FREE- ROAMING WILD HORSES IN AND AROUND THE CURRITUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. ``COROLLA WILD HORSES PROTECTION ACT''; H.R. 588, TO REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE SAM D. HAMILTON NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; AND S. 266, A BILL TO REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE SAM D. HAMILTON NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; H.R. 258, TO REQUIRE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO PREPARE A CROSSCUT BUDGET FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED, TO REQUIRE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2011''

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

      H.R. 306, COROLLA WILD HORSES PROTECTION ACT; H.R. 588/S. 266, TO
        REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE SAM D.
    HAMILTON NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; & H.R. 258, CHESAPEAKE BAY
                    ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2011

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

                               LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
                           OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            Thursday, April 7, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-22

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

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

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    65-625 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

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

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

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
                              AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

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

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

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, April 7, 2011..........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Louisiana.........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the
          Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands...............     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Virginia......................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Harper, Hon. Gregg, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Mississippi.......................................     8
            Prepared statement on H.R. 588 and S. 266................    10
            Letter from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
              submitted for the record...............................    11
        Hutchins, Dr. Michael, Executive Director/CEO, The Wildlife
          Society....................................................    19
            Prepared statement on H.R. 306...........................    21
        Jones, Hon. Walter B., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of North Carolina................................     6
            Prepared statement on H.R. 306...........................     7
        Mann, Dr. Roger L., Professor of Marine Science, Virginia
          Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary,
          Gloucester Point, Virginia.................................    16
            Prepared statement on H.R. 258...........................    18
        McCalpin, Karen H., Executive Director, Corolla Wild Horse
          Fund, Inc., Corolla, North Carolina........................    23
            Prepared statement on H.R. 306...........................    25
        Siekaniec, Greg, Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
          Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior..........    12
            Prepared statement on H.R. 588 and S. 266................    13

    Additional materials supplied:
        Marczyk, Bernie, Governmental Affairs Representative, Ducks
          Unlimited, Annapolis, Maryland, Letter submitted for the
          record on H.R. 258.........................................    38
        Siglin, Doug, Director of Federal Affairs, Chesapeake Bay
          Foundation, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 258....    36
        Skinner, Katherine D., State Director, North Carolina, The
          Nature Conservancy, Letter submitted for the record on H.R.
          306........................................................    34

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 306, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
            INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COROLLA
            WILD HORSE FUND, CURRITUCK COUNTY, AND THE STATE OF
            NORTH CAROLINA TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF FREE-
            ROAMING WILD HORSES IN AND AROUND THE CURRITUCK
            NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. ``COROLLA WILD HORSES
            PROTECTION ACT''; H.R. 588, TO REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE
            NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE SAM D. HAMILTON NOXUBEE
            NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; AND S. 266, A BILL TO
            REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE
            SAM D. HAMILTON NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; H.R.
            258, TO REQUIRE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO
            PREPARE A CROSSCUT BUDGET FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN
            THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED, TO REQUIRE THE
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO DEVELOP AND
            IMPLEMENT AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND FOR OTHER
            PURPOSES. ``CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY
            ACT OF 2011''
                                  ----------

                            Thursday, April 7, 2011

                         U.S. House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in
    Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Fleming, Wittman, Southerland,
    Harris, Bordallo and Sablan.

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

        Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
    Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. Under Committee Rule
    4[f], opening statements are limited to the Chairman and
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee so that we can hear from our
    witnesses more quickly. However, I ask unanimous consent to
    include any other Member's opening statement in the hearing
    record if submitted to the Clerk by close of business today.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on
    four legislative proposals. The first bill has been introduced
    by our distinguished Committee colleague, the gentleman from
    the 1st Congressional District in Virginia, Congressman Rob
    Wittman, whose timing was perfect this morning. H.R. 258 would
    require an interagency crosscut budget that will provide
    clarity and Federal funding for restoration efforts in the
    Chesapeake Bay. In addition, this legislation will require that
    an adaptive management plan be adopted for Chesapeake Bay
    restoration activities. This plan would institute measurable
    objectives to ensure that both Federal and state dollars spent
    on restoration are producing positive results. The Chesapeake
    Bay supports more than 3,600 species of fish, plants and
    wildlife, and more than $1 billion in economic activity is
    generated from one of the largest estuaries in the world.
        While millions of tax dollars have been spent to improve
    the quality of the Bay, these funds are distributed among many
    agencies and departments. The many Federal and state Chesapeake
    Bay restoration programs lack a single, comprehensive reporting
    system for the funding of these activities. The fundamental
    goal of H.R. 258 is to eliminate this serious shortcoming.
        The second bill, H.R. 306, has been introduced by our
    colleague from North Carolina, Congressman Walter B. Jones.
    Now, the goal of his legislation is to try to save the herd of
    wild Corolla horses by requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service
    to enter into a new management agreement. I find it curious
    that the Fish and Wildlife Service feels these beautiful
    horses, whose ancestors arrived on the shores of North Carolina
    nearly 500 years ago, to be not native to this ecosystem and
    pest animals, yet this same agency has spent millions of
    dollars trying to protect, restore and save the population of
    such listed species as the Delhi Sands fly, delta smelt,
    kangaroo rat, New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, and Texas
    blind salamander.
        I suspect that more than a few Americans would find these
    species to be pests. While this is not a hearing on the
    Endangered Species Act, what we do know is that the Corolla
    Wild Horse Fund, who have asked for changes to the management
    plan, passionately believes that Corolla wild horses are being
    managed for extinction. Finally, our colleague, Congressman
    Gregg Harper, has introduced H.R. 588, a bill to rename the
    Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi after former
    Fish and Wildlife Service Director Sam D. Hamilton who
    unexpectedly died on February 20, 2010. Director Hamilton had a
    distinguished 30-year career with the Service, and it is my
    understanding that his first outdoor jobs were banding wood
    ducks and building waterfowl pens at the Noxubee National
    Wildlife Refuge. Similar legislation, S. 266, has already
    passed the Senate and I hope our witnesses will discuss any
    differences or concerns with that legislation, as well as the
    House version. I look forward to hearing the testimony on these
    proposals. I am now pleased to recognize our Ranking Democratic
    Member from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
    Congressman Sablan, for any statement he would like to make.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]

      Statement by The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
    Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, on H.R. 258, H.R. 306,
                              H.R. 588 and S. 266

        Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on four
    legislative proposals. The first bill has been introduced by our
    distinguished Committee colleague, the gentleman from the 1st
    Congressional District in Virginia, Congressman Rob Wittman.
        H.R. 258 would require an interagency cross-cut budget that will
    provide clarity in federal funding for restoration efforts in the
    Chesapeake Bay. In addition, this legislation will require that an
    adaptive management plan be adopted for Chesapeake Bay restoration
    activities. This plan would institute measurable objectives to ensure
    that both federal and state dollars spent on restoration are producing
    positive results.
        The Chesapeake Bay supports more than 3,600 species of fish, plants
    and wildlife, and more than $1 billion in economic activity is
    generated from one of the largest estuaries in the world. While
    millions of tax dollars have been spent to improve the quality of the
    Bay, these funds are distributed among many agencies and departments.
    The many federal and state Chesapeake Bay restoration programs lack a
    single comprehensive reporting system for the funding of these
    activities. The fundamental goal of H.R. 258 is to eliminate this
    serious shortcoming.
        The second bill, H.R. 306, has been introduced by our colleague
    from North Carolina, Congressman Walter B. Jones. The goal of his
    legislation is to try to save the herd of wild Corolla horses by
    requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into a new management
    agreement.
        I find it curious that the Fish and Wildlife Service feels these
    beautiful horses whose ancestors arrived on the shores of North
    Carolina nearly 500 years ago to be ``not native to this ecosystem''
    and ``pest animals''. Yet, this same agency has spent millions of tax
    dollars trying to protect, restore and save the population of such
    listed species as the Delhi Sands fly, delta smelt, Kangaroo rats, New
    Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnakes and Texas blind salamanders. I suspect
    that more than a few Americans would find these species to be
    ``pests''. While this is not a hearing on the Endangered Species Act,
    what we do know is that the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, who have asked for
    changes to the management plan, passionately believes that Corolla wild
    horses are being managed for ``extinction''.
        Finally, our colleague Congressman Gregg Harper has introduced H.R.
    588, a bill to rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in
    Mississippi after former Fish and Wildlife Service Director Sam D.
    Hamilton who unexpectedly died on February 20, 2010. Director Hamilton
    had a distinguished 30 year career with the Service and it is my
    understanding that his first outdoors jobs was banding wood ducks and
    building waterfowl pens at the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge.
    Similar legislation, S. 266, has already passed the Senate and I hope
    our witnesses will discuss any differences or concerns with that
    legislation as well as the House version.
        I look forward to hearing the testimony on these proposals. I am
    now pleased to recognize our Ranking Democratic Member from the
    Commonwealth of Northern Marianas, Congressman Sablan, for any
    statement he would like to make.
                                     ______

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

        Mr. Sablan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    good morning, everyone. Congressman Jones, thank you for being
    here with us today. I look forward to hearing about your bill,
    H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act, which I
    understand will statutorily direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service to formally enter into an agreement with other
    governmental and nongovernmental partners to ensure a long-
    term, sustainable wild horse herd on the Currituck Outer Banks
    in North Carolina. I hope I got that right. The management of
    non-native wildlife is always a challenge, including in the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, so I will be
    interested to hear the different perspectives of our witnesses.
        We appreciate you being here as well, Congressman Harper,
    to testify on your bill, H.R. 588, which would redesignate the
    Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee
    National Wildlife Refuge. Although I have never had the chance
    to meet Director Hamilton, it is abundantly clear that everyone
    who worked with him during his three-plus decades of public
    service had the utmost respect and admiration for him. His
    lifelong commitment to conservation and restoration of some of
    the nation's most important species and ecosystems started at
    Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge and it is fitting, I think,
    that this place is memorialized in his honor. Finally, I look
    forward to hearing about a bill introduced by our Subcommittee
    colleague, Congressman Wittman, H.R. 258. The Chesapeake Bay
    Accountability and Recovery Act of 2011 would increase
    coordination and accountability by requiring a crosscut project
    and adaptive management for all restoration activities in the
    Bay. I appreciate my colleague's efforts to improve accounting
    and oversight over these restoration activities which will
    enhance and recover the resources of the Bay. With that, I look
    forward to hearing from our witnesses today and learning more
    about these issues. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]

          Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Sablan, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, on
                    H.R. 306, H.R. 588/S. 266, and H.R. 258

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Congressman Jones, thank you for being here with us today. I look
    forward to hearing about your bill, H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses
    Protection Act, which I understand would statutorily direct the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service to formally enter into an agreement with
    other governmental and non-governmental partners to ensure a long-term
    sustainable wild horse herd on the Currituck Outer Banks in North
    Carolina. The management of non-native wildlife is always a challenge,
    including in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, so I
    will be interested to hear the different perspectives of our witnesses.
        We appreciate you being here as well, Congressman Harper, to
    testify on your bill, H.R. 588, which would redesignate the Noxubee
    National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National
    Wildlife Refuge. Although I never had the chance to meet Director
    Hamilton, it is abundantly clear that everyone who worked with him
    during his three plus decades of public service had the utmost respect
    and admiration for him. His lifelong commitment to conservation and
    restoration of some of the Nation's most important species and
    ecosystems started at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge and it is
    fitting that this place is memorialized in his honor.
        Finally, I look forward to hearing about a bill introduced by our
    Subcommittee colleague, Congressman Wittman. H.R. 258, the Chesapeake
    Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2011 would increase coordination
    and accountability by requiring a crosscut budget and adaptive
    management for all restoration activities in the Bay. I appreciate my
    colleague's efforts to improve accounting and oversight over these
    restoration activities, which will enhance and recover the resources of
    the Bay.
        With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and
    learning more about these issues.
                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. Based on the traditions
    of this Subcommittee, I would like to now recognize my good
    friend and colleague, Rob Wittman, for any opening statement he
    would like to make on this bill, H.R. 258.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                   FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    the opportunity to bring this bill before the Committee. As you
    know, the bill was also submitted in the 111th Congress where
    it passed the House 418 to 1. It is a very elemental part of
    what I believe needs to happen to increase the efforts to
    restore the Bay. It revolves around two fairly simple concepts.
    One, crosscut budgeting, and that simply means that where every
    penny is spent on the Bay, we will have a single place in the
    Federal budget where you can see exactly how much is being
    spent, and then from there you can drill down and see exactly
    what agency is spending what. That creates a transparency there
    that leads to the ability to make sure that agencies are
    accountable, and the accountability part is the second element
    of what is called adaptive management.
        Just like you would do if you owned a business, you make
    changes along the way depending on what is the most effective
    expenditure dollar. So if you are seeing that a particular
    practice is effective in reducing nitrogen, you would want to
    make sure you continue that practice. If there was one practice
    you were funding that is not particularly effective, you would
    want to make sure that you either made changes to it or that
    you redirected resources to something that was working. The
    same goes for other restoration practices on the Bay. Whether
    it is oyster restoration or sturgeon restoration, the concept
    is applicable across those Bay programs. So this bill merely
    puts in place those particular elements to make sure that there
    is transparency and that there is accountability in the efforts
    that go on with the Bay.
        Some of the frustration that many of us have with what
    happens in Bay efforts is that you see multiple agencies doing
    many things, many times without coordination and many times
    without sharing data, many times without looking at the
    outcomes and how those outcomes are getting the total Bay
    effort toward restoration, whether it is through resources or
    whether it is for water quality. I think you will hear a little
    bit later on from Dr. Mann who works at the Virginia Institute
    of Marine Science about their experience and how they deal with
    the many different agencies. They are the lead agency in
    Virginia to provide direction and scientific information to the
    Virginia agencies and other agencies up and down the Bay
    watershed as to what is happening with the Bay.
        How are particular efforts either being effective or not
    being effective? I know in my days in working with Bay water
    quality I saw many of those instances where if there was just a
    little more coordination, a little more transparency there, we
    could do so much more and make sure, too, that we are
    accelerating those efforts. As you know, right now the
    Chesapeake Bay Act is up for reauthorization. Many of the
    elements there in restoring the Chesapeake Bay haven't gotten
    to where we need to be as far as restoration. So I truly
    believe that this will be one of those elements to help elevate
    that, create that transparency and streamline things to make
    sure that we are focused on outcomes and coordination. So, Mr.
    Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to bring this bill before the
    Subcommittee today, and I look forward to the testimony of our
    witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman follows:]

        Statement of The Honorable Robert J. Wittman, a Representative
           in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia, on H.R. 258

        Chairman John Fleming, thank you very much for holding this hearing
    to consider legislation related to the Chesapeake Bay.
        Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 258, The Chesapeake Bay
    Accountability and Recovery Act of 2011.
        I am honored to represent Virginia's First Congressional District.
    Improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay is a priority to me and many
    of my constituents.
        I believe there is a sense of frustration in the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed about the progress made to restore the Bay. Yes, there have
    been successes. However, with all of the federal, state, local and
    private partner investment we would all like to see more
    accomplishments. Better accounting and more flexible management are
    essential to restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
        My legislation, H.R. 258, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and
    Recovery Act, would implement and strengthen management techniques like
    crosscut budgeting and adaptive management -to ensure we get more bang
    for our buck and continue to make progress in Bay restoration efforts.
    Both techniques will ensure that we're coordinating how restoration
    dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how
    individual projects fit into the bigger picture. That way, we're not
    duplicating efforts, spending money we don't need to or, worse, working
    at cross purposes.
        H.R. 258 would require OMB in coordination with state and federal
    agencies involved in the Bay to report to Congress on the status of
    Chesapeake Bay restoration activities.
        This legislation would also require EPA to develop and implement an
    adaptive management plan for Chesapeake Bay restoration activates.
        Adaptive management relies on rigorous scientific monitoring,
    testing and evaluating; and the flexibility to modify management
    policies and strategies based on changing conditions.
        The bill also requires EPA to appoint an Independent Evaluator (IE)
    to review and report on restoration activities, implementation of
    adaptive management, and other topics suggested by the Chesapeake
    Executive Council. The IE will report findings and recommendations to
    Congress every three years.
        Crosscut budgeting, adaptive management and an Independent
    Evaluator should be key components for the complex restoration activity
    in the Chesapeake Bay.
        The Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act is common sense
    legislation, broadly supported throughout the watershed. During the
    111th Congress, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1053,
    identical legislation by a vote of 418-1. Currently, the bill is
    supported by a bipartisan group of Members of Congress across the Bay
    watershed. Outside organizations, including Ducks Unlimited, the
    Virginia Seafood Council and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also support
    the legislation. Additionally, the National Taxpayer Union identified
    H.R. 258 as the ``Least Expensive Bill of the Week'' for March 2, 2011.
        Thanks again for holding this hearing and I look forward to
    continuing working with you and the Committee to restore the Chesapeake
    Bay.
                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman from Virginia and
    certainly appreciate his passion for this issue. It is very
    obvious that you are well read, sir, and well studied this, and
    that is a credit to your state, to your district. I think we
    will now hear from our first panel which is comprised of two of
    our distinguished colleagues, The Honorable Walter B. Jones of
    North Carolina and The Honorable Gregg Harper of Mississippi.
    Gentlemen, welcome to the Walter B. Jones Hearing Room. Like
    all witnesses, your written testimony will appear in the full
    hearing record so I ask that you keep your oral statement to
    five minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you and
    under Committee Rule 4[a]. Our microphones are not automatic so
    please press the button when you are ready to begin. Let us
    see. OK. With that, I recognize Congressman Jones for five
    minutes, sir.

      STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
    Ranking Member and the Members of the Committee for this
    opportunity to discuss H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horse
    Protection Act. This bill would provide for a new management
    plan for the free-roaming Corolla wild horses of North
    Carolina's Outer Banks. These Corolla horses can be traced back
    to the arrival of Spanish explorers on the Outer Banks in the
    16th Century. These horses survived in the wild for over four
    centuries and currently roam across 7,500 acres of public and
    private land in coastal Currituck County, North Carolina.
    Unfortunately, under the existing management agreement between
    the Interior Department, the State of North Carolina, Currituck
    County and the nonprofit Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the maximum
    number of horses allowed in the herd is 60. Leading equine
    genetic scientists believe that the number 60 threatens the
    herd's existence due to high levels of inbreeding and low
    levels of genetic diversity. To address this issue, H.R. 306
    would require the parties to the agreement to craft a new
    management plan to allow a herd of no less than 110 horses with
    a target of 120 to 130 horses. That is the minimum number that
    renowned equine genetic scientist Dr. Gus Cothran of Texas A&M
    University has found to be necessary to maintain the herd's
    genetic viability. It is important to note that these numbers
    are well within the care and capacity of the land these horses
    call home and to increase the herd's genetic diversity the bill
    would, under limited circumstances, allow for the introduction
    of a small number of free-roaming wild horses from the related
    herd at Cape Lookout National Seashore. H.R. 306 is similar to
    a bill I authored to save the wild horses of Shackleford Banks
    in Cape Lookout National Seashore. That legislation, H.R. 765,
    which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998,
    has provided a successful framework for a public/private
    partnership to manage the Shackleford horses. I am grateful to
    President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, for his
    help in moving that legislation. Mr. Bowles, who just left his
    position as President of the University of North Carolina's
    system and was co-chair of President Obama's Debt Commission,
    is also a strong supporter of this bill, H.R. 306. Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to read a passage from a letter to the
    Committee in support of this bill from North Carolina State
    Senator Stan White. He states, ``In 2010, the North Carolina
    General Assembly designated the Colonial Spanish Mustangs as
    the North Carolina state horse. It was done to show how
    important these horses are to our culture, their value to our
    economy and our commitment to their welfare. However, this
    designation cannot do its job without a solid management plan
    that clarifies what is necessary for these horses to thrive.
    H.R. 306 would allow for the best management of the herd
    according to what has been scientifically determined to be
    necessary for their health and long-term survival.'' Joining
    Senator White in his support for H.R. 306 are the Humane
    Society, North Carolina's Governor Bev Perdue, Currituck
    County, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Foundation for
    Shackleford Horses, Saving America's Mustangs, American Wild
    Horse Preservation Campaign and Equus Survival Trust. I would
    like to ask unanimous consent for letters of support be
    included for the record.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman asks for unanimous consent. If
    there are no objections, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

        Statement of The Honorable Walter B. Jones, a Representative in
     Congress from the State of North Carolina, on H.R. 306, Corolla Wild
                             Horses Protection Act

        Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan, thank you for this
    hearing on H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act. The bill
    would provide for a new management plan for the free-roaming Corolla
    wild horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge on the
    Outer Banks of North Carolina. The lineage of the Corolla horses can be
    traced back to the arrival of Spanish explorers on the Outer Banks in
    the 16th century. These beautiful creatures have survived in the wild
    for over four centuries. They currently roam across over 7,500 acres of
    public and private land in coastal Currituck County, North Carolina.
        Unfortunately, under the existing management agreement between the
    U.S. Department of the Interior, the State of North Carolina, the
    County of Currituck and the non-profit Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the
    maximum number of horses allowed in the herd is 60. Leading equine
    geneticists believe that the number 60 poses an immediate threat to the
    herd's existence due to high levels of inbreeding and low levels of
    genetic diversity in the herd. To address this issue, the bill would
    require the parties to the agreement to craft a new herd management
    plan that would allow for a herd of no less than 110 horses, with a
    target population of between 120 and 130 horses. That is the minimum
    number of horses that renowned equine geneticist Dr. Gus Cothran of
    Texas A&M University has found to be necessary to maintain the herd's
    genetic viability. It's important to note that these numbers are well
    within the carrying capacity of the land these horses call home. And to
    increase the herd's genetic diversity, the bill would also under
    limited circumstances allow for introduction of a small number of free-
    roaming wild horses from the related herd at Cape Lookout National
    Seashore.
        This bill is similar to one I authored to protect the wild horses
    of Shackleford Banks in the Cape Lookout National Seashore. That
    legislation--H.R. 765--which was signed into law by President Bill
    Clinton in 1998, has provided a successful statutory framework for a
    public-private partnership to manage the Shackleford horses. I am
    grateful to President Clinton's Chief of Staff at that time--Erskine
    Bowles--for his assistance in moving that legislation. Mr. Bowles, who
    just stepped down as President of the University of North Carolina
    System and co-Chaired President Obama's Debt Commission, is also a
    strong supporter of this bill, H.R. 306.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a letter to the Committee
    supporting H.R. 306 from North Carolina State Senator Stan White, who
    represents Currituck County in the State Senate. He states: ``In 2010,
    the North Carolina General Assembly designated the Colonial Spanish
    Mustang as the North Carolina State Horse. It was done to show how
    important these horses are to our culture, their value to our economy,
    and our commitment to their welfare. However, this designation cannot
    do its job without a solid management plan that clarifies what is
    necessary for these horses to thrive. H.R. 306 would allow for the best
    management of the herd according to what has been scientifically
    determined to be necessary for their health and long-term survival.''
        Joining Senator White in supporting H.R. 306 are the Humane
    Society, North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue, Currituck County, the
    Animal Welfare Institute, The Foundation for Shackleford Horses, Saving
    America's Mustangs, American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, and
    Equus Survival Trust. I would like to ask unanimous consent for letters
    of support from these individuals and organizations to be included for
    the record.
        Mr. Chairman, again thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 306.
    It is a legislative fix based on sound science, and I urge the
    Subcommittee to support it.
                                     ______

        Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, before I close I would like to
    point to my right and my left these beautiful horses on the
    shore in Currituck County. they are majestic, they again are
    traced back to the Spanish Mustangs. Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on
    H.R. 306. Thank you, sir.
        Dr. Fleming. I thank the distinguished gentleman from North
    Carolina for your testimony. Now we will turn to the
    distinguished gentleman from Mississippi. Sir, you have five
    minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. GREGG HARPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                     FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
    Sablan and distinguished Subcommittee Members. Thank you for
    this opportunity to come and testify regarding H.R. 588,
    legislation that I introduced to redesignate the Noxubee
    National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee
    National Wildlife Refuge. This bill is a companion piece to S.
    266 introduced by Senator Thad Cochran which passed the Senate
    on February 17, 2011. It is my understanding there are no
    differences between S. 266 and this bill. H.R. 588 honors Mr.
    Sam D. Hamilton, a lifetime conservationist and a great man who
    served more than 30 years at the Fish and Wildlife Service,
    ultimately rising to the position of Director in December of
    2009.
        As the panel is aware, the Refuge System was created in
    1903 and has 548 national wildlife refuges and wetland
    management districts that are home to some 700 species of
    birds, 220 mammals and 280 threatened or endangered species.
    The Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge is located in East Central
    Mississippi. It was established in 1940 and consists of 48,000
    acres inhabited by a variety of game and nongame fish and
    wildlife, including quail, deer, turkey, an endangered
    woodpecker, wood stork, American alligator, bald eagle and
    wintering waterfowl. Approximately 170,000 people visit the
    refuge annually and enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking and other
    outdoor and educational activities.
        Mr. Hamilton has a long and personal history with the
    refuge. A native of Starkville, Mississippi, he recalled during
    his confirmation hearing testimony that he caught his very
    first fish at the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge at the age
    of five and began his conservation career there as an employee
    at the age of 15. Sam called the Refuge System the finest
    collection of public lands and waters dedicated to fish and
    wildlife conservation in the world. Upon graduation from
    Mississippi State University, Sam started a 30-year career at
    the Fish and Wildlife Service. He worked in service field
    offices and Washington, D.C. headquarters, served extended
    details to the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
    and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and was a
    special assistant in the director's office.
        He was selected to be the Fish and Wildlife Service's first
    state administrator in Austin, Texas, to work with state and
    local governments and private landowners on statewide
    conservation issues, and he served as the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's Regional Director for the Southeast Region. On
    September 1, 2009, Sam D. Hamilton was sworn in as the
    fifteenth director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sam
    passed away on February 20, 2010. Honoring Sam by renaming the
    refuge would be a tribute to his remarkable career and
    commitment to conservation. The National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation recently provided a $100,000 grant to the friends of
    Noxubee Refuge that will fund new signs and capital
    improvements for the refuge, as well as a scholarship and
    education funding in honor of Sam. This grant will allow the
    name change to occur without the Federal Government incurring
    those costs. I would like now to ask for unanimous consent to
    submit a letter for the record from the ex-National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation Executive Director, Jeff Trandahl, which
    outlines this grant.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman asks for unanimous consent. If
    there are no objections, so ordered.
        [NOTE: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation letter
    submitted for the record can be found at the end of Mr.
    Harper's prepared statement.]
        Mr. Harper. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify before you today regarding H.R. 588. I
    look forward to working with you to ensure this legislation is
    signed into law to remember a man who truly devoted his life
    and career to the ideals formed during his early days at the
    Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. I thank you and welcome any
    questions that the Subcommittee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Harper follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Gregg Harper, a Representative
             in Congress from the State of Mississippi, on H.R. 588

        Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding
    H.R. 588, legislation I introduced to redesignate the Noxubee National
    Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife
    Refuge. This bill is a companion piece to S. 266, introduced by Senator
    Thad Cochran, which passed the Senate on February 17, 2011. H.R. 588
    honors Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, a lifetime conservationist and a great man
    who spent 30 years at the Fish and Wildlife Service, ultimately rising
    to Director in 2009.
        As this panel is aware, The Refuge System was created in 1903 and
    has 548 national wildlife refuges and 37 wetland management districts
    that are home to some 700 species of birds, 220 mammals, and 280
    threatened or endangered species.
        The Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge is located in east-central
    Mississippi. It was established in 1940 and consists of 48,000 acres
    inhabited by a variety of game and non-game fish and wildlife including
    quail, deer, turkey, the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, wood
    stork, American alligator, bald eagle and wintering waterfowl.
    Approximately 170,000 people visit the Refuge annually and enjoy
    hunting, fishing, hiking and other outdoor and educational activities.
        Mr. Hamilton has a long and personal history with the Refuge. A
    native of Starkville, Mississippi, he recalled during his confirmation
    hearing testimony--he caught his first fish at the Noxubee National
    Wildlife Refuge at age 5 and began his conservation career there as an
    employee at age 15. Sam called the Refuge System the ``finest
    collection of public lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife
    conservation in the world.''
        Upon graduation from Mississippi State University, Sam started a
    30-year career at the Fish and Wildlife Service. He worked in Service
    field offices and Washington, D.C. headquarters, served extended
    details to the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and was a special assistant
    in the Director's office. He was selected to be the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's first state administrator in Austin, Texas to work with state
    and local governments and private landowners on statewide conservation
    issues and he served as the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional
    Director for the Southeast Region. On September 1, 2009, Sam D.
    Hamilton was sworn-in as the 15th Director of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service.
        Sam passed away on February 20, 2010. Honoring Sam by renaming the
    Refuge would be a tribute to his remarkable career and commitment to
    conservation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation recently
    provided a $100,000 grant to the Friends of Noxubee Refuge that will
    fund new signs and capital improvements for the Refuge, as well as
    scholarship and education funding in honor of Sam. This grant will
    allow the name change to occur without the federal government incurring
    these costs. I would like to submit a letter for the record from the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Executive Director, Jeff
    Trandahl, which outlines this grant.
        Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
    today regarding H.R. 588. I look forward to working with you to ensure
    this legislation is signed into law to remember a man who devoted his
    life and career to the ideals formed during his early days at the
    Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Thank you, and I welcome any
    questions the committee may have.
                                     ______

        [The letter from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
    submitted for the record by Mr. Harper follows:]

        Dr. Fleming. I thank the distinguished witnesses and
    excellent testimonies of my colleagues and friends this
    morning. As is our tradition, we do not normally have a round
    of questions for our colleagues; however, I will open the table
    up for any specific questions that Members may have. If not,
    then our distinguished witnesses are excused. Thank you for
    your time.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. I am sorry. Do we have one? I am sorry.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to state
    that I am in support of all of these bills, in particular, H.R.
    306 authored by Mr. Jones. I am very much in favor of horses
    and very interested in their well-being. Thank you.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.
        Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady from Guam. No further
    questions? Then our witnesses are excused. Thank you for your
    time and service. We will ask the second panel of witnesses to
    move forward. OK. It appears that our second panel is well-
    positioned so we will move forward. We are now ready for our
    second panel. This panel includes Mr. Greg Siekaniec, the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service's Assistant Director for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System; Dr. Roger Mann, Professor of Marine
    Science at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science; Dr.
    Michael Hutchins, Executive Director of the Wildlife Society;
    and Ms. Karen McCalpin, Executive Director of the Corolla Wild
    Horse Fund. So of course the procedure here is you have five
    minutes each. We ask you to keep your remarks within the five
    minute window. When you see the yellow light, that means you
    have one minute left, and try to conclude, of course, your
    comments at the end of the five minute period. So I would like
    to first recognize Mr. Siekaniec. Five minutes, sir.

       STATEMENT OF GREG SIEKANIEC, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
                         WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

        Mr. Siekaniec. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking
    Member Sablan and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I
    am Greg Siekaniec, presently the Acting Deputy Director of the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the
    Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
    Subcommittee today to present the Department's testimony on
    H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horse Protection Act, and H.R. 588
    and S. 266, bills that would rename the Noxubee National
    Wildlife Refuge after our late director, Sam D. Hamilton. As
    outlined more fully in my written statement, the Department
    opposes passage of H.R. 306 and supports passage of H.R. 588.
    H.R. 306 would require the Secretary of the Interior to enter
    into an agreement to provide for management of horses in and
    around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge.
        The bill mandates a herd of not less than 110 horses in and
    around the refuge and severely limits the Service's ability to
    manage these horses. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge was
    established to protect and preserve migratory birds and other
    wildlife resources. Native species that depend upon this
    coastal barrier island ecosystem include waterfowl, wading
    birds, shore birds, raptors, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and
    a variety of plants. The refuge provides habitat for endangered
    species such as piping plover and sea turtles. The Service
    views wild horses as feral domestic animals. On the refuge,
    horses compete with native wildlife species for resources and
    often negatively impact habitat. For example, horses trample
    and consume plants, removing food and shelter for native
    species. Horses are also known to facilitate the introduction
    of invasive weeds.
        H.R. 306 would weaken the Service's ability to accomplish
    the refuge's purposes. Under the bill, the Service will no
    longer be able to place its highest management priorities at
    the refuge on migratory bird management or endangered species
    protection. The bill also limits the Service's management
    discretion on the refuge by restricting our ability to close
    areas, remove horses or provide grazing opportunities
    beneficial to wildlife within enclosed areas. The Service also
    questions whether the area can sustain 110 or more horses. This
    concern is heightened by ongoing development of private land
    which continues to diminish the quantity of suitable habitat
    outside the refuge. Maintaining a horse herd may eventually
    prevent us from fulfilling the purposes for which the refuge
    was established. Last, we view H.R. 309 as unnecessary because
    there is already a successful horse management plan in place.
    The current version of the Currituck Outer Banks Wild Horse
    Management Plan was reviewed and approved in partnership with
    the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of Currituck and the
    North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve in 2007. For
    these reasons, the Department opposes passage of H.R. 306.
        H.R. 588 and S. 266 would rename the Noxubee National
    Wildlife Refuge the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife
    Refuge. We greatly appreciate Representative Harper's and
    Senator Cochran's efforts to honor our late director with these
    bills. I would like to say a few words about Sam, if I may.
    Sam's vision and commitment to wildlife conservation were
    extraordinary, as you have already heard. He was passionate
    about conservation of natural resources and about the Service's
    mission. He held a deep appreciation for the work done by each
    employee of the Service. Sam worked for over 30 years on a wide
    variety of positions that spanned field work in the marshes of
    Mississippi to policy work in the headquarters office in
    Washington, D.C.
        He served for many years as the Southeast Regional Director
    before being nominated and confirmed as the Service's Director
    in 2009. Sam's tenure as director, though brief, was guided by
    his strongly held belief that no single entity, whether
    Federal, state or private, can ensure the sustainability of the
    nation's fish and wildlife resources working independently. He
    worked toward building collaborative partnerships to develop
    bold ideas and solutions to the challenges facing the nation's
    wildlife. His views and approaches toward conservation resonate
    deeply within the Service to this day. With regards to Noxubee
    National Wildlife Refuge, there is no doubt that Sam had a
    special place in his heart for this refuge. He grew up close to
    the refuge in Starkville, Mississippi.
        He caught his first fish there with his father at age of
    five. Sam began his career in conservation with the Youth
    Conservation Corps at Noxubee Refuge. Although it is generally
    the policy of the Service not to recommend name changes after
    individuals, in recognition of Sam's contributions, we are all
    honored that Congress is actually considering honoring one of
    our own in the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department
    supports H.R. 588 and S. 266. In closing, the Administration
    appreciates the Subcommittee's continued leadership and support
    for the conservation of the nation's wildlife and our National
    Wildlife Refuge System. I thank you for the opportunity to be
    here and testify today. I would be happy to answer any
    questions the Subcommittee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Siekaniec follows:]

             Statement of Greg Siekaniec, Acting Deputy Director,
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

    INTRODUCTION
        Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Greg
    Siekaniec, Acting Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (Service), within the Department of the Interior (Department).
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
    today to testify on two bills of interest to the Service: H.R. 306 the
    Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act and H.R. 588, a bill to rename the
    Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National
    Wildlife Refuge. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's continued
    leadership and support for the conservation of the nation's wildlife
    and our National Wildlife Refuge System.
        As outlined below, the Department opposes passage of H.R. 306 and
    supports passage of H.R. 588.
    H.R. 306, THE COROLLA WILD HORSES PROTECTION ACT
        H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act, would require the
    Secretary of the Interior to provide for management of horses in and
    around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. As discussed below, the
    Administration opposes this legislation.
        Currituck National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1984 and is
    located on the northern end of North Carolina's Outer Banks. The refuge
    was established to preserve and protect the coastal barrier island
    ecosystem, and refuge lands are managed to provide wintering habitat
    for waterfowl and to protect endangered species such as piping plover,
    sea turtles, and sea beach amaranth. Various types of wading birds,
    shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians
    common to the eastern United States, are found on the refuge. The
    refuge consists of six separate units all located between Corolla,
    North Carolina, and the state boundary between North Carolina and
    Virginia.
        H.R. 306, the ``Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act,'' would require
    the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the
    Corolla Wild Horse Fund, a local nonprofit corporation, the County of
    Currituck, and the State of North Carolina to provide for management of
    horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. This
    mandated agreement must allow a herd of not less than 110 horses in and
    around the refuge, provide for management of the horses, and provide
    for the introduction of a small number of horses from Cape Lookout
    National Seashore, as necessary, to maintain genetic viability of the
    herd. Additionally, the bill provides no funding for management of
    horses on the refuge.
        H.R. 306 precludes the Secretary from excluding horses from any
    portion of the refuge unless a finding is made that the presence of
    horses on a portion of the refuge threatens the survival of an
    endangered species for which such land is designated as critical
    habitat, the finding is based on a credible peer-reviewed scientific
    assessment, and the Secretary provides a period of public notice and
    comment on that finding.
        The Department has significant concerns with H.R. 306, and opposes
    its passage. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge was established to
    manage for specific trust wildlife species including waterfowl,
    migratory birds, and endangered species. The Service views wild horses,
    as defined in 50 CFR 30.11(a), as feral domestic animals. On Currituck
    National Wildlife Refuge, horses compete with native wildlife for
    limited resources and horses negatively impact habitat. H.R. 306 would
    subrogate the refuge's purposes as the Service will no longer be able
    to place its highest priority on managing wildlife such as migratory
    birds and endangered species. The bill fails to consider the refuge's
    Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which was created with public
    involvement, and it overrides the requirements of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System Administration Act and the Endangered Species Act.
        H.R. 306 would limit the Service's management discretion on the
    refuge by restricting our ability to close areas, remove horses, or
    provide grazing opportunities beneficial to wildlife within enclosed
    areas. For example, research is currently underway to assess the
    impacts of deer, pigs, and horses to refuge habitats. Such research
    requires excluding these species from areas to determine the extent of
    their impacts. H.R. 306 would compromise this study by precluding
    closure of these areas to horses, and eliminate future habitat impact
    research needed to meet the objectives for which the refuge was
    established. The requirement to show the presence of horses on a
    portion of the refuge threatens the survival of an endangered species--
    based on a peer-reviewed scientific assessment involving a public
    comment period--will require time and substantial resources that are
    currently not available at the refuge. The refuge has over 400 native
    wildlife species it is responsible for monitoring and sustaining with
    five staff stationed at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge.
    Requiring this level of intensive management for one feral species cuts
    into staff capacity for maintaining the native species for which the
    refuge was established.
        The bill mandates maintaining a herd of not less than 110 free-
    roaming wild horses in and around the refuge, with a target population
    of between 120 and 130 free-roaming wild horses. The current Currituck
    Outer Banks Wild Horse Management Plan provides for a maximum of 60
    horses, with the population controlled through adoption, relocation, or
    contraceptive fertility methods. Sustaining a herd of 110 or more
    horses concerns us. We are also concerned that development of private
    land continues to erode the quantity of suitable habitat outside the
    refuge and this trend could cause future horse populations to be even
    more reliant on the refuge, thus further cutting into a habitat base
    intended for native wildlife.
        Lastly, the Department views H.R. 306 as unnecessary because there
    is already a horse management plan in place. The current version of the
    Currituck Outer Banks Wild Horse Management Plan was reviewed and
    approved in partnership with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of
    Currituck, and the NC National Estuarine Research Reserve in 2007. The
    purpose of this plan is to provide guidelines and general management
    objectives for managing the Currituck Outer Banks horses. The
    management plan provides management flexibility to respond to changing
    circumstances in the area. This flexibility is now paramount as plans
    to construct a mid-Currituck bridge are moving forward. This bridge
    will significantly increase the rate of development and the amount of
    vehicular traffic, changing available habitats for both horses and
    native wildlife to some, currently unknown, extent. Refuge management
    plans have been updated to reflect the presence of horses on the refuge
    property and their use. Plans address the need to monitor horse
    impacts, make management decisions based upon sound wildlife management
    practices to protect critical resources, and to work with partners to
    protect these resources.
        Accordingly, the Department opposes passage of H.R. 306, the
    ``Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act.''
    H. R. 588 AND S. 266, BILLS TO RENAME NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
        H.R. 588 would rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge the Sam
    D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. We greatly appreciate
    Representative Harper's efforts to honor our late Director with this
    bill, and appreciate the similar efforts of Senator Cochran. Although
    it is generally the policy of the Service not to name refuges after
    individuals, in recognition of Sam's contributions, the Department
    supports H.R. 588 and the Senate's unanimous passage of the Senate
    companion legislation, S. 266, earlier this year and urges the House of
    Representatives to take the same action.
        Last year, the conservation community lost one of its most dynamic
    leaders with the passing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Sam
    D. Hamilton, III. Sam's vision and commitment to wildlife conservation
    were extraordinary. His passion for conservation and the Service's
    mission, along with his deep appreciation for the work done by each
    employee of the Service, are his legacy.
        Sam grew up in Starkville, Mississippi, and not long before his
    passing he recalled catching his first fish with his father at the age
    of five at nearby Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Sam began his
    career in conservation with the Youth Conservation Corps at Noxubee
    National Wildlife Refuge, and he had a special place in his heart for
    this refuge. Sam later joined the Service and worked in a number of
    field offices doing on the ground conservation in Alabama, Mississippi,
    Texas, Georgia and two stints in Washington. Prior to his confirmation
    in 2009, Sam served as the Southeast Regional Director. There he
    spearheaded a renewed commitment to the Region's national wildlife
    refuges--public lands that provide a multitude of benefits to wildlife
    and people--and its national fish hatcheries, which play a key role in
    managing the Nation's fisheries and aquatic resources.
        After working for the Service for more than 30 years, Sam was
    nominated to lead the agency as its Director. Sam's tenure as Director,
    while brief, was guided by his strongly held belief that no single
    entity, whether Federal, State, or private, can ensure the
    sustainability of the nation's fish and wildlife resources working
    independently. He worked toward building collaborative partnerships to
    develop bold ideas and solutions to the challenges facing the nation's
    wildlife.
        In general, Service policy establishes criteria for naming a refuge
    and states that first preference is given to a geographic or geologic
    feature that is tied to the identity of the refuge. If there is no such
    significant feature, then the refuge may be named after a wildlife,
    fish, or plant species. The policy specifically states that a refuge
    should not be named after any individual, although buildings, trails,
    and other facilities within the refuge may be named after an individual
    who played a significant role in the establishment or operation of the
    refuge.
        The policy was adopted because the Service recognizes that most
    places have existing names that reflect the natural characteristics and
    history of the landscape. Many existing names have significant cultural
    meaning to local communities. The Service's stewardship of national
    wildlife refuges reflects a land ethic that recognizes local land forms
    and features. Our policy is meant to keep the natural places and wild
    creatures as the focus of our work.
    CONCLUSION
        The Service greatly appreciates your leadership, and the interest
    and efforts of the Subcommittee in supporting the conservation of the
    nation's fish and wildlife resources and wildlife-dependent recreation.
    We look forward to working with Subcommittee members as you consider
    these bills and other legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify today and would be happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. I thank the witness. Next we have Dr. Roger
    Mann. Sir, you have five minutes. Again, when ready.

       STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER MANN, PROFESSOR OF MARINE SCIENCE,
                  VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE

        Dr. Mann. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Committee, it is a pleasure to be here today in response to
    your invitation to provide testimony on H.R. 258, the
    Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act. My name is
    Roger Mann. I am a Professor of Marine Science and Director of
    Research and Advisory Services at the Virginia Institute of
    Marine Science. I have been a researcher examining natural
    ecosystems and their management for both ecological services
    and the provision of sustained harvest for 35 years, the last
    25 of those in the Chesapeake Bay with particular emphasis on
    oyster restoration. The comments that I present today represent
    not just my own, but those of a strong consensus of colleagues
    who I polled in preparing this testimony.
        Collectively, their expertise represents several hundred
    person years of direct experience in Chesapeake Bay science,
    management and policy. In my short statements I wish to
    highlight three points.
        Adaptive management. The words are in the bill. Adaptive
    management is a dynamic and responsive process that includes
    stakeholder participation, setting of goals, monitoring,
    modeling, experimentation, research, continual reevaluation
    with modification of end points. It is an iterative, dynamic
    process, it is not static. You have to move toward the goal by
    the methods possible. With respect to the Chesapeake Bay
    restoration effort, the required dynamic and responsive process
    would be much improved by reengagement of the science
    community. This is a common answer when I ask my colleagues
    what can we do? They say we need to be reengaged, we need to be
    better engaged.
        Finally, constructive peer-review is the backbone of
    science. It is the backbone of the National Science Foundation,
    it is the backbone of all science. Appointment of an
    independent evaluator, and this is not a new idea here, for Bay
    restoration is essential if we are only going to have the very
    best science guiding how we get the best with the limited
    amount of funds that we have available in these difficult
    economic times. The need to restore and maintain the Bay was
    formalized in 1983 as a partnership between the Federal
    Government and the Bay partners with, ``this is an ongoing
    commitment to share responsibility for management decisions and
    resources regarding the high priority issues of the Chesapeake
    Bay''. How do we maximize progress toward restoration goals? We
    do it, again, through a responsive dynamic process.
        In the early days of the Bay program this was realized by
    an action committee of scientific involvement, a robust
    scientific technical and advisory committee, researchers and a
    small, but efficient, Chesapeake Bay program whose directive
    was to support the staff. Again, reengagement. We need to go
    back to this base clean, mean model. The baseline of
    environmental challenges is not moving in the Bay because it is
    not only stressed by population growth, but also by sea level
    rise and climate changes. The baseline moves, you must move
    with it. Restoration goals must therefore be responsive. In
    practically all applied economic, social, engineering and
    scientific endeavors, the current approach is to employ
    numerical models. These both assimilate prior knowledge and
    they provide guidance.
        The Bay Monitoring Program is extraordinarily rich in data
    sets that can allow us to do this. The challenge that presents
    itself to us at the moment in terms of where we go between the
    Bay program and the Bay scientific community is to do a better
    job of making the existing models work better. The TMVL one is
    a good example. It is about making these things work better and
    making them accurate and understandable to a nontechnical
    community that uses them. This is where we should be investing.
    The current generation of models is complex, but they are
    getting better and their costs are going down. One only has to
    look at the advances we have made in tide surge models over the
    last five to 10 years. We can predict to street level accuracy
    now with these models precisely what happened in Hurricane
    Isabelle. What a marvelous forecasting tool.
        We need to invest. We must not confuse activity with
    accomplishment. We need to refocus, when necessary. We need to
    incorporate new findings and engage new talent. It is an
    iterative process. H.R. 258 proposes appointment of an
    independent evaluator. Again, not a new idea. This is in the
    Executive Order, and when this subject was last here in
    testimony in June of 2009, this was also debated. Critical
    independent peer-review is the backbone of science. It is the
    key to restoring what we want to do and to do it with the most
    cost-efficient approach. The current Bay program has grown. It
    is large, it has complex infrastructure, and, in my opinion, is
    lacking in flexibility.
        If you reengage the scientific community, you will be able
    to make it more efficient. Again, the National Science
    Foundation does this all the time. The states, in both their
    academic institutions and their state agencies, are with
    reservoirs of enormous talent that can be engaged with short
    lead times and high cost efficiency because, in many instances,
    as these tasks emerge that tell us where to go, many of the
    infrastructures are already in place and the talent is already
    in place, we should take it. We should take advantage of this.
    Independent review by a proposed office of independent
    evaluator I think will just underscore these options and
    highlight these opportunities. We need to go there.
        In summary, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to
    provide testimony, and I applaud the goals of H.R. 258 by
    developing a crosscutting budget. In these times of
    extraordinary debates about where our national budget is going,
    this is absolutely critical. We need it as a tool to evaluate
    progress, and we need to appoint an independent evaluator. This
    is long overdue. The challenges remain significant, but I think
    with a concerted effort to reengage the science community and
    use these state-of-the-art and proactive modeling tools as
    drivers, these do work and adopt a more flexible dynamic
    approach. We can make progress. We can make a lot of progress.
    Let us proceed. Thank you. This completes my testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Mann follows:]

     Statement of Professor Roger Mann, Director for Research and Advisory
    Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and
                 Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, on H.R. 258.

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here
    today in response to your invitation to provide testimony on H.R. 258:
    the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2011.
        My name is Roger Mann. I am a Professor of Marine Science and
    Director for Research and Advisory Services, Virginia Institute of
    Marine Science, College of William and Mary. I have been a researcher
    examining natural ecosystems and their management for both ecological
    services and sustained harvest of commercially valuable products for
    thirty five years. For the past twenty five I have been active in
    fisheries resource management and restoration in the Chesapeake Bay, in
    particular in the field of oyster restoration. The comments that I
    present today represent not just my own, but a strong consensus of
    colleagues with whom I have discussed this important bill.
    Collectively, their expertise amounts to several hundred person years
    of direct experience in Chesapeake Bay science, management, and policy.
        In my testimony today I wish to highlight three statements:
            1.  Adaptive management is a dynamic and responsive process
            that includes stakeholder participation, setting of goals,
            monitoring, modeling, experimentation, research, and continual
            re-evaluation with modification of end points and goals as
            directed by this iterative process.
            2.  With respect to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, the
            required dynamic and responsive process would be much improved
            by a fresh re-engagment of the science community.
            3.  Constructive peer review is the backbone of science.
            Appointment of an Independent Evaluator for bay restoration is
            essential to insure that only the very best science guides
            these actions.
        The Chesapeake Bay has been described as a National Treasure--a
    description with which I wholeheartedly agree. The largest estuary in
    the continental United States, the bay watershed includes over 100,000
    streams, 150 major rivers, and 11,500 miles of shoreline in a 64,000
    square mile footprint in the states of New York, Delaware, Maryland,
    West Virginia, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the
    District of Columbia. The bay watershed is also home to approxmately
    15,000,000 people and an ecosystem under significant stress. Over 4.4
    million acres have been developed, at least half of that in the past
    fifty years. Agricultural, urban and industrial development have
    inevitable impacts on receiving waters. Direct expolitation of living
    resources and modification of bay shorelines to shipping channels have
    lasting signatures.
        The need to restore and maintain the Chesapeake Bay has long been
    recognized and enjoys wide public support. Formalized through the 1983
    Chesapeake Bay Agreement and susbequent instruments, the bay partners
    (the federal government, represented by the Environmental Protection
    Agency, joined the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealths of
    Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia) commited to
    ``share the responsibility for management decisions and resources
    regarding the high priority issues of the Chesapeake Bay.'' This is an
    ongoing commitment. The task before us in these difficult economic
    times may be stated thus: ``How do we maximize progress towards
    restoration goals per dollar invested?''
        Maximizing progress in restoration requires a responsive, dynamic
    structure to support actions that lead to progress by the state
    partners. Progress in the early days of the Chesapeake Bay Program was
    realized by coordinated actions of external scientific involvement, a
    robust Scientific Technical Advisory Committee, Bay researchers, and a
    small but efficient Chesapeake Bay Program whose directive was to
    support the states. A return to this model requires re-engagement of
    the greater Bay scientific community in an open review process.
        The baseline of environmental challenges is moving as the Bay is
    stressed not only by population growth but also by sea level rise and
    climate change. Restoration goals and the means to attain them must be
    flexible in response. In practically all applied economic, social,
    engineering and scientific endeavors the current approach is to employ
    numerical models to evaluate current knowledge and guide project
    actions. Continuing revision of the goals and actions are expected as
    more information emerges. The Bay monitoring programs have produced
    enormously rich data sets that can be used to assess progress to date
    and plan future action. The role of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the
    Bay scientific community is to do a better job of making existing
    numerical models both more accurate and understandable to the non-
    technical Bay community who are also the stakeholders in the process.
    This can be achieved with appropriate resources.
        The current generation of numerical models is complex, but their
    development times and costs are decreasing while the output is
    increasingly sought for societal purposes--progress in tidal surge
    models associated with storm events provide a good example. Engaging a
    wide representation of the science community to build such proactive
    tools is tractable, but progress also requires a commitment to change
    what does not work, redefine acceptable outcomes if required, not
    confuse activity with accomplishment, refocus efforts outside of the
    original goals if new options emerge in the management process,
    incorporate new findings, and engage new talent where talent is needed.
    Bay restoration must be progressive science, not just progressive
    bureaucracy and policy.
        H.R. 258 proposes appointment of an Independent Evaluator.
    Critical, independent, open, constructive peer review is the backbone
    of scientific progress. Peer review is the key to achieving restoration
    goals and doing it with highest cost efficiency. The current Bay
    Program effort is large with complex infrastructure and lacking in
    flexibility. Re-engaging the scientific community in a flexible,
    dynamic approach to restoration actions will achieve better results.
    The states, in both academic institutions and the state agencies, are
    reservoirs of enormous talent that can be engaged with short lead times
    and high cost efficiency because in many instances the task specific
    talents and infrastructure already exist within those agencies.
    Independent review by the proposed Office of the Independent Evaluator
    will, I have no doubt, highlight these opportunities.
        In summary, I again thank the Committee for the opportunity to
    provide testimony. I applaud the goals stated in H.R. 258 of developing
    a cross cutting budget as a tool to evaluate progress in Bay
    restoration activity and appoint an Independent Evaluator. The
    challenges are significant, but with a concerted effort to re-engage
    the science community, use state of the art proactive modeling tools as
    drivers, and adopt a more flexible, dynamic and responsive operations
    structure these challenges can be met. Let us proceed. This completes
    my testimony.
                                     ______

        Mr. Wittman [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Mann. We appreciate
    that, and we are going to move on next to Dr. Hutchins and
    remind you that the lighting system there starts off with five
    minutes, at the yellow light you are at one minute, and we
    would like for you as best you can to stay within those five
    minutes. So, Dr. Hutchins, thank you so much for joining us and
    we look forward to your testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL HUTCHINS,
                EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

        Dr. Hutchins. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee
    Members, my name is Michael Hutchins and I am the Executive
    Director and CEO of the Wildlife Society. We appreciate the
    opportunity to comment on H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horse
    Protection Act. Funded in 1937, the Wildlife Society is a
    nonprofit scientific and educational association representing
    over 10,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers. The
    Wildlife Society defines wildlife as living organisms that are
    not humans, domesticated animals or plants. Wild animals'
    ancestors have never been domesticated or modified by selective
    breading, where as feral animals' ancestors were once
    domesticated but are now free-roaming in the absence of human
    care.
        Coming from domesticated stock, the wild horses in America
    are actually feral, or not part of the native ecosystem.
    Although many nonextinct horse lineages have all been North
    American, today's feral horses are not members of the same
    species as North American fossil specimens. Invasive or non-
    native species are among the most widespread and serious
    threats to the integrity of native wildlife populations because
    they invade and degrade natural ecosystems. The feral horses
    that roam freely along the Atlantic Coast are examples of such
    species. They are iconic and much loved by some, but they
    compete with native species, damage habitats and require
    focused and sustained management.
        Herds of feral horses cause significant changes to barrier
    islands through trampling of soils and vegetation, selectively
    grazing palatable plants and altering the distribution of
    nutrients in the ecosystem. Overgrazing affects plant community
    dynamics and renders sensitive dunes and marshlands more
    vulnerable to erosion by severely reducing vegetative cover.
    Trampling of nesting sites has a direct impact on ground
    nesting birds, which are numerous on the offshore islands.
    These effects are of particular concern in the context of
    Currituck National Wildlife Refuge which was established in
    1984 to preserve and protect coastal barrier island ecosystems.
    Refuge lands are managed to provide wintering habitat for
    waterfowl and to protect endangered species, such as piping
    plovers and sea turtles.
        Various types of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians
    are also found on the refuge. H.R. 306 puts the Service in the
    difficult position of being legislatively required to manage
    for the conservation of native wildlife and habitat on the one
    hand, and to support a non-native invasive species on the
    other. The Wildlife Society has several concerns with this
    legislation. First, although the current management plan calls
    for a maximum herd of 60, this has not been achieved since
    2002. The 2010 count was 115 with the population on a clear
    upward trend. We are concerned that the herd will soon
    overshoot the legislation's maximum population size of 120. In
    addition, the effects of the current herd size on the refuge
    are not well-documented.
        Such a herd size should not be legislatively mandated until
    its effects on the area's native wildlife and habitat are made
    clear. Second, it is not clear what cost-effective management
    means in Section 2 of the Act. Maintaining a stable population
    of feral horses will likely require a long-term combination of
    expensive fertility control and removal of excess horses. The
    cost of managing a non-native species should not come at the
    expense of our native species. Finally, the legislation would
    place unnecessary restrictions on the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's ability to exclude feral horses from sections of the
    refuge. As written, the bill would only allow removals of feral
    horses that are threatening the survival of an endangered
    species for which such land is designated as critical habitat.
        Expert refuge staff trained in wildlife management and
    conservation should have the discretion to exclude horses from
    any area of the refuge when they are causing undesirable
    effects. Furthermore, the Act is unnecessary because there is
    already a horse management in place, as already pointed out. We
    strongly recommend that the herd be kept at the 60 horse
    maximum currently required by the existing management plan,
    thus minimizing the negative impacts on native wildlife and
    habitat. Ideally, feral horses should be removed from the
    refuge entirely to allow the native wildlife there to thrive.
    If this is not done, however, the areas from which feral horses
    are excluded should be increased to include any sensitive
    habitats on the island. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify and for considering the views of wildlife
    professionals. I would be happy to answer any questions you
    might have at this time.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Hutchins follows:]

            Statement of Michael Hutchins, Executive Director/CEO,
        The Wildlife Society on H.R. 306, H.R. 588, S. 266 and H.R. 285

        Mr. Chairman:
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Natural
    Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and
    Insular Affairs. My name is Michael Hutchins, and I am the Executive
    Director and CEO of The Wildlife Society.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding H.R.
    306, the Corolla Wild Horse Protection Act. Founded in 1937, The
    Wildlife Society is a non-profit scientific and educational association
    of over 10,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers, dedicated
    to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education.
    Our mission is to represent and serve the professional community of
    scientists, managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who
    work actively to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and its habitats
    worldwide.
        TWS seeks a world where people and wildlife co-exist, where
    biological diversity is maintained, and decisions affecting the
    management, use, and conservation of wildlife and their habitats are
    made after careful consideration of relevant scientific information and
    with the engagement and support of an informed and caring citizenry.
    TWS defines wildlife as living organisms that are not humans,
    domesticated animals, or plants. Wild animals' ancestors have never
    been domesticated--modified by selective breeding--whereas feral
    animals' ancestors were once domesticated but are now free-ranging in
    the absence of human care. The ``wild'' horses in America are actually
    feral and are not part of the native ecosystem.
        Invasive, or non-native, species are among the most widespread and
    serious threats to the integrity of native wildlife populations because
    of their potential to invade and degrade native ecosystems. These
    species present special challenges for wildlife managers because their
    impacts on the native biota are poorly understood by the general
    public, and many people erroneously regard them as a component of the
    natural ecosystem. Feral horses (Equus caballus) that roam freely along
    the Atlantic coast of the U.S. are examples of such species: they are
    iconic and much-loved by some, but damage wildlife habitat and require
    focused and sustainable management practices.
        Although many now-extinct horse lineages evolved in North America,
    today's feral horses are not members of the same species as North
    American fossil specimens. Scientists consider these feral horses to be
    a recent and disruptive addition to North American ecology, rather than
    a native species.
        Herds of feral horses cause significant changes to barrier island
    environments. As large herbivores, they alter landscapes through
    trampling soils and vegetation, selectively grazing palatable plants,
    and altering the distribution of nutrients in the ecosystem.
    Specifically, grazing impacts the distribution and abundance of native
    plant species and affects plant community dynamics (Furbish and Albano
    1994). It may alter net aboveground primary production and belowground
    biomass, produce a network of paths through sensitive systems, and
    affect plant regeneration (Turner 1987). Trampling of nesting sites is
    a direct impact to birds. Indirect impacts to marsh faunal communities
    may also result, including shifts in bird, fish, and invertebrate
    assemblages and abundances as well as changes in interspecific
    interactions (Levin et al. 2002).
        The result of grazing impacts depends on the location of the
    grazing activity (i.e. intertidal versus upland), interspecific
    competition, and herbivory intensity (Furbish and Albano 1994).
    Overgrazing is a major concern on barrier islands, as it has been shown
    to degrade habitat and negatively impact sensitive dunes and marshlands
    by increasing susceptibility to erosion (Seliskar 2003, Keiper 1990).
    Marshes may also be made more vulnerable to erosion and storm damage if
    sediment accretion is impaired by reduced grass density (Turner 1987).
        The effects of overgrazing are of particular concern in the context
    of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge
    System Improvement Act of 1997 described the mission of the System as
    follows: the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to
    administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
    management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
    and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the
    benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
        Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, located on the northern end of
    North Carolina's Outer Banks, was established in 1984 to preserve and
    protect the coastal barrier island ecosystem. Refuge lands are managed
    to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl and to protect endangered
    species such as piping plover, sea turtles, and sea beach amaranth.
    Various types of wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors, mammals,
    reptiles, and amphibians common to the eastern United States are found
    on the refuge.
        H.R. 306 would make it more difficult for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service to manage the feral horses on Currituck National
    Wildlife Refuge and hamper the Refuge System's mission. The legislation
    puts the Fish and Wildlife Service in the difficult position of being
    legislatively required to manage for the conservation of native
    wildlife and habitat on the one hand and to support a non-native
    invasive species on the other.
        The Wildlife Society has several concerns with the legislation.
    First, we note that although the current management plan calls for a
    maximum herd size of 60, this has not been achieved since 2002. The
    2010 count was 115, with the horses on a clear upward trajectory. Since
    the Corolla Wild Horse Fund has been unable to manage to the previously
    required level of 60, we are concerned that the herd will soon
    overshoot the legislation's maximum population size of 120. In
    addition, the effects of the current herd size of 115, on the refuge
    and elsewhere, are not documented. Such a herd size should not be
    legislatively mandated until its effects on the area's native wildlife
    and habitat are clear.
        Second, it is not clear what `cost-effective' management means in
    Section 2. Maintaining a stable population of feral horses, which can
    double in population every four years, will likely require a
    combination of fertility control measures and removal of excess horses
    for sale or adoption. The cost of managing a non-native species should
    not come at the expense of native species. In this case, Currituck
    Refuge is unstaffed and unfunded. We fear that the funds necessary to
    manage feral horses on Currituck Refuge will come from Mackay Island
    Refuge, where they could have been used to manage for native wildlife
    or improve hunting or other recreational opportunities for visitors.
    The Corolla area has a strong tradition of waterfowl hunting and
    related recreation, and we would hate to see this compromised for the
    sake of an invasive species.
        Finally, the legislation would place unnecessary restrictions on
    the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to exclude feral horses from
    sections of the refuge. As written, the bill would only allow removals
    when the feral horses are threatening the survival of an endangered
    species for which such land is designated as critical habitat, as
    documented by a peer-reviewed scientific assessment involving a public
    comment period. Such a process will require time and substantial
    resources that are currently not available at the refuge. Refuge staff,
    trained in wildlife management and conservation, should have the
    discretion to exclude horses from any area of the refuge when they are
    causing undesirable effects. This provision would also effectively
    eliminate the ability of refuge staff to conduct research on the
    impacts of feral horses on habitat and native species by excluding them
    from some areas and then comparing the vegetation structure and
    biological diversity between the exclosure area and areas where feral
    horses are permitted.
        The Corolla Wild Horses Act bill fails to consider the refuge's
    Comprehensive Conservation Plan and overrides the requirements of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and Endangered
    Species Act. Furthermore, it is unnecessary because there is already a
    horse management plan in place. The current version of the Currituck
    Wild Horse Management Plan was reviewed and approved in partnership
    with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of Currituck, and the NC
    National Estuarine Research Reserve in 2007.
        We strongly recommend that the herd be kept at the 60-horse maximum
    currently required by the Currituck Wild Horse Management Plan. The
    lower number of horses would decrease the effects on native wildlife
    and habitat. Occasionally bringing horses in from the Cape Lookout herd
    will allay any concerns about genetic diversity. Ideally, feral horses
    should be removed from the Refuge to allow the native wildlife there to
    thrive. If this is not done, the areas from which feral horses are
    excluded on the refuge should be increased to include any sensitive
    habitats.
        Feral horse inventories should be performed at sufficient intervals
    to quickly determine whether they are having adverse impacts and
    rapidly implement management actions to control and reduce ecological
    damage. We also support increased funding for scientifically defensible
    assessments of ecosystem conditions that are used to make decisions
    about feral horse management. Such assessments should consider the
    welfare of the feral horses, as well as the ability of the system to
    conserve native plant and animal populations and provide ecosystem
    services--clean air, clean water, and carbon sequestration.
    Literature Cited
    Furbish, C.E. and M. Albano. 1994. Selective herbivory and plant
            community structure in a Mid-Atlantic salt marsh. Ecology
            75(4): 1015-1022.
    Levin, P.S., J. Ellis, R. Petrik, and M.E. Hay. 2002. Indirect effects
            of feral horses on estuarine communities. Conservation Biology
            16(4): 1364-1371.
    Keiper, R.R. 1990. Biology of large grazing mammals on the Virginia
            barrier islands. Virginia Journal of Science 41(4A): 352-363.
    Seliskar, D.M. 2003. The response of Ammophila breviligulata and
            Spartina patens (Poaceae) to grazing by feral horses on a
            dynamic Mid-Atlantic barrier island. American Journal of Botany
            90(7): 1038-1044.
    Turner, M.G. 1987. Effects of grazing by feral horses, clipping,
            trampling, and burning on a Georgia salt marsh. Estuaries
            10(10): 54-60.
                                     ______

        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Dr. Hutchins. We appreciate, again,
    your testimony and we look forward to being able to ask a few
    questions. We are going to move on now to Ms. McCalpin. We
    thank you so much for joining us and want to remind you, too,
    again about our system here of five minutes. We look forward to
    your testimony. Thank you.

     STATEMENT OF KAREN McCALPIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COROLLA WILD
                               HORSE FUND

        Ms. McCalpin. Thank you. Congressman Wittman, Congressman
    Sablan, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 306. The wild horses
    of North Carolina's Currituck Outer Banks have survived nearly
    five centuries but they cannot survive the critically low herd
    number dictated by the current management plan, as well as a
    scientifically documented dangerous decline in genetic
    diversity. Spanish ships' logs verify horses on the shores of
    North Carolina around 1520. In 1926, there were 5,000 to 6,000
    wild horses all up and down the Outer Banks. Today, the current
    herd of registered Colonial Spanish Mustangs has dwindled to
    108. DNA testing completed in 1992, and again in 2008, by Dr.
    Gus Cothran of Texas, an expert on wild herds, show that the
    Corolla horses have less genetic diversity and have reached a
    genetic bottleneck.
        The Corolla wild horses live on approximately 7,500 acres
    north of Corolla, 2,500 acres of which is Currituck National
    Wildlife Refuge property. The remaining land is privately
    owned. A written management plan was created in 1997. The Fund
    requested at least 100 horses, but the Federal representatives'
    position was zero. After a prolonged and contentious debate,
    the herd size was set at a maximum of 60, a number not based on
    any existing scientific data, but merely a number upon which
    all parties were finally able to agree. In April of 2008, the
    Fund staff formally requested that the herd size be changed to
    a target population of 120 to 130, the minimum number
    recommended by Dr. Cothran. The Fund also requested permission
    to introduce a small number of mares from Shackleford to add
    diversity to a dying gene pool.
        Our request was denied by Fish and Wildlife, citing
    competition for resources, although there is no existing
    scientific data to support their position. A 1997 impact study
    by Drs. Richard and Martha Rheinhardt covered over 11,000 acres
    from the northern end of Back Bay Wildlife Refuge in Virginia,
    south to Corolla. The results showed that horses consumed few
    shrub species and grass species seemed to recover from grazing
    by early summer. No plants eaten by wild horses are included on
    the Federal threatened species list. When determining impact,
    we cannot overlook humans. Thousands of vehicles drive on the
    beach and behind the dunes daily. The fragile dunes are
    negatively impacted by climbing and driving on them.
        It is not the horses that leave trash, deep tire ruts, drop
    oil and other contaminants. Our herd manager maintains a
    database of the wild horses that is updated weekly. The 22 to
    23 harems are evenly distributed over the 7,500 acres. Each
    harem stays in its own home region and generally remains there
    until the end of their life. July 22, 2010 photos taken outside
    the 135-acre refuge fence where 13 horses were forced out on
    March 12 of that year, and photos of the 16'-by-16' exclosures
    show thick vegetation outside the fence. There is no evidence
    of overgrazing in these photos, even in last summer's extreme
    drought conditions. The Corolla Wild Horse Fund is the NGO that
    physically manages and cares for the herd.
        We employ four full-time staff, five seasonal staff and
    utilize a pool of over 30 volunteers. We operate a year-round
    educational facility with 75,000 visitors annually. We are on
    call 24/7, 365 days a year. We rescue and rehabilitate sick and
    injured horses and have placed 38 horses in loving adoptive
    homes from Texas to Maine since September of 2006. We transport
    deceased horses to Raleigh for necropsy, assist in veterinary
    euthanizations in the field and maintain all barrier fences,
    including the cabled fence into the ocean. All expenses related
    to wild horse management are incurred by the Fund with no cost
    to the Federal Government, nor would the implementation of H.R.
    306 create any additional management costs as long as the Fund
    continues to manage the herd.
        In the last year, we have worked cooperatively with
    Currituck County to create and implement several new ordinances
    to protect the horses, collected and tested water, soil and
    plant samples from all areas of the North Beach, distributed
    thousands of handouts regarding the wild horse ordinance and
    coordinated a campaign to designate the Colonial Spanish
    Mustang as the North Carolina state horse. The Fund holds 70
    acres in a conservation easement and our website lists land
    donation as a method of helping to protect and preserve the
    wild horses. Our long-term goal is to hold significant acreage
    in conservation easements. For nearly 500 years, the wild
    horses of Corolla have persevered against all odds.
        I am always moved by their strength, intelligence, beauty
    and iron will to live. These sons and daughters of the sand
    carry a wealth of genetic history that is quickly, not slowly,
    dying. We are already seeing a decline in the number of healthy
    foals being born and an increasing number of horses with
    abnormalities. We are not asking for hundreds of horses, we are
    asking for 120 to 130, the number recommended by scientific
    data generated by an expert in the field, the same number that
    has existed on Federal property at Cape Lookout National
    Seashore for the last 12 years on half the land with no
    documented impact. Raising the allowable herd size alone will
    not solve the issue of our horses being too closely related to
    one another. Introduction of mares from the Shackleford herd is
    the only way to breed new DNA into a gene pool headed for
    certain collapse. Like the wild horses, we are determined and
    we find strength in their presence. They are nobody's horses,
    but they are everybody's horses. I am honored to be their voice
    and ask you today to honor their history and protect their
    future. Please move H.R. 306 forward and save these endangered
    horses for future generations to view, admire and respect.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McCalpin follows:]

              Statement of Karen H. McCalpin, Executive Director,
      Corolla Wild Horse Fund, Inc., Corolla, North Carolina. on H.R. 306

        Chairman Fleming and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Karen
    McCalpin and I am the Executive Director of the Corolla Wild Horse
    Fund. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 306,
    the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act. I speak on behalf of the
    citizens of Currituck County, North Carolina, the hundreds of thousands
    of annual visitors who travel to the Outer Banks specifically to view
    the number one tourist attraction--our wild horses, and most
    importantly, I speak for the wild horses who have recently been
    designated by the North Carolina legislature as the North Carolina
    state horse. I would also like to express my gratitude to
    Representative Walter Jones for sponsoring the bill as well as
    cosponsors Representatives Howard Coble, Gerry Connolly, David Price
    and Ed Whitfield.
    Background:
        Powerful, intelligent, breathtakingly beautiful, and determined to
    survive--the wild horses of North Carolina's Currituck Outer Banks have
    survived nearly five centuries of fierce hurricanes, unrelenting
    nor'easters, severe droughts, floods, and swarms of biting insects. But
    can they survive the critically low herd number as defined in the
    current management plan as well as a scientifically documented
    dangerous decline in genetic diversity?
        Spanish ships' logs verify horses being brought to the shores of
    North Carolina around 1520. Historians believe that some horses were
    able to survive shipwrecks and swam ashore. Horses were also among the
    heavy cargo shoved overboard in an attempt to refloat ships grounded on
    sand bars, and some were simply left behind when colonies failed.
        Recognized and registered as Colonial Spanish Mustangs in 2007 by
    the international Horse of the Americas Registry (HOA), the wild horses
    now roaming the northernmost Outer Banks have adapted to a very
    specialized diet of coarse salt grass, sea oats, panic grass, American
    beach grass, cordgrass, acorns and persimmons found in five main
    habitat areas. Areas of dune grass, dry grassland, wet grassland, tidal
    fresh water marsh, and maritime forest provide food and shelter. The
    Currituck Sound (a fresh water estuarine system) provides a constant
    source of water, as do numerous ponds, puddles, and manmade canals.
        According to a 1926 National Geographic magazine article entitled
    ``Motor Coaching the Outer Banks,'' there were five to six thousand
    wild horses on the 175 mile stretch that makes up the Outer Banks.
    Today, the current herd count has dwindled to 108.
        DNA testing completed in 1992 by Dr. E. Gus Cothran, an
    internationally recognized equine geneticist and expert on wild herds,
    showed that the Corolla horses have ``less genetic diversity than any
    other group of horses.'' In 2008, DNA samples were collected via
    remotely delivered dart for an updated study of the herd's current
    overall genetic health. Dr. Cothran reported that the horses had now
    reached a ``genetic bottleneck,'' with high levels of inbreeding and
    low levels of genetic diversity. Further mitochondrial DNA analysis
    confirmed that the Corolla herd has only one maternal line, while the
    wild Colonial Spanish Mustangs on Shackleford Banks (Cape Lookout
    National Seashore) have four maternal lines. The wild horses on
    Shackleford Banks have been managed at a target population of 120--130
    since the passage of the Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act
    in 1998. Dr. Cothran generally recommends a herd size of 120--130 as
    the minimum for a feral herd.
        The low Corolla herd size also presents an imminent danger to the
    survival of the horses that goes beyond high levels of inbreeding. When
    the number drops below the absolute minimum of 110, the herd is at
    extreme risk for being completely eradicated by a disease, drought,
    fire, flood, or hurricane. They could easily be gone forever. The
    Corolla horses are already listed as a critically endangered breed by
    the American Livestock Breed Conservancy and the Equus Survival Trust,
    national nonprofit organizations that work to conserve rare breeds. The
    next category is extinction.
        Until 1985, the paved road (NC 12) came to an end at what is now
    the Sanderling Resort in Duck, North Carolina. Only 4 wheel drive
    vehicles could access the next 25 miles to the North Carolina/Virginia
    border. A guard gate ensured that only the few permanent residents or
    their guests went any further. At that time, the wild horses had a
    territory encompassing nearly 13,000 acres. When the road from Duck to
    Corolla was paved in 1985, what was once a remote and rugged wild horse
    sanctuary with a handful of residents exploded with the development of
    thousands of vacation homes.
        By 1989, so many horses had been injured or killed on NC 12 and
    horse/human interactions had become so frequent, a group of concerned
    residents formed the all volunteer Corolla Wild Horse Fund (CWHF).
    Members of the Fund set out to find ways to protect the wild horses.
    After much time, effort, and tears, the twenty or so wild horses left
    in Corolla were rounded up in 1995 and moved to the only remaining area
    left with no paved roads. Referred to as the 4X4 beach or north beach,
    a sound to sea fence was built to keep the horses out of the populated
    areas of Corolla. A partial fence already existed near the North
    Carolina/Virginia border but had to be extended. Cattle guards were
    installed near the end of the paved road and at a gate along the
    northern fence. The cattle guards allow access by vehicles but not
    horses. The two fences are 11 miles apart. There were an unknown number
    of wild horses already inhabiting the north beach when the additional
    twenty were added.
        The wild horses that once called the entire 175 miles of this
    barrier island their home, now live on approximately 7,544.25 acres of
    the north beach. Of that, 4,671.35 acres is privately owned by
    individuals and corporations; 2,495.4 is Currituck National Wildlife
    Refuge property; 326.5 is the North Carolina National Estuarine
    Research Reserve; and 51 acres is owned by the nonprofit Nature
    Conservancy. There are over 1300 houses in the three developed
    subdivisions of Swan Beach, North Swan Beach, and Carova. People reach
    their houses and beach rentals by driving on the beach and over the
    dunes on sand cartways. (Attachment 1--Wild Horse Range Acreage map)
    Management Plan:
        A written management plan was created in 1997 by an advisory group
    (Currituck Outer Banks Wild Horse Advisory Board) consisting of
    representatives from the Corolla Wild Horse Fund (CWHF), United States
    Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina National Estuarine
    Research Reserve (NCNERR), and Currituck County as well as two county
    appointed citizen representatives who reside on the north beach. The
    CWHF requested a herd size of at least 100, in sharp contrast to the
    federal representatives' position of zero. Even though the 1992 genetic
    study had already revealed low genetic diversity, the herd size was
    eventually set at a maximum of 60. This number was not selected based
    on any existing scientific data but was merely a number upon which all
    parties were able to agree after prolonged and contentious debate.
        I began my duties as the first fulltime Executive Director of the
    Fund on September 4, 2006. After reading the management plan and as a
    life-long horsewoman I was stunned to see such a low maximum herd size.
    The management plan was due to be reviewed and signed again by the end
    of the year. Although I immediately recognized that a wild herd of 60
    was not viable, being so new to the position, I had no scientific data
    available to support a request for a larger herd number. However,
    because the plan reads, ``This plan will be reviewed and updated at
    least on a five year cycle. All signatories recognize that any
    management plan is a living document and will change based upon current
    circumstances,'' I felt that once I acquired data from a credible
    source, the management plan could be changed ``based on current
    circumstances'' and ``that all signatories recognize that any
    management plan is a living document.''
        In April of 2008, the Fund staff formally requested that the
    maximum herd size be changed to the scientific number recommended by
    Dr. Cothran in relation to his DNA findings from the most recent DNA
    samples. The Fund also requested permission to introduce a small number
    of mares from Shackleford Banks to begin to restore diversity to the
    dying gene pool. USFWS and the NCNERR denied the request citing the
    potential for damage to the refuge and reserve as a result of a larger
    herd, although there is no existing scientific data to support their
    denial. The Fund was told to continue to permanently remove healthy
    horses for adoption and dart healthy breeding age mares with
    contraceptives to work toward a herd size of 60. (Corolla: 7,544.25
    acres; 60 horses; Shackleford: 3,000 acres 120--130 horses)
        I turned to Congressman Jones for assistance and he traveled to
    Corolla in October of 2008 to meet with the Currituck Outer Banks Wild
    Horse Advisory Board. At this meeting, USFWS verbally agreed to allow
    the herd to remain at the current level then (100) until a multi-year
    exclosure study funded by North Carolina State University and USFWS
    could be conducted and the data analyzed. They again denied our request
    to change the written management plan and to date it remains at a
    maximum herd size of 60.
    Impact:
        Before making my request for an increase in herd size, I spoke
    extensively with Dr. Sue Stuska, National Park Service Wildlife
    Biologist and Carolyn Mason, President of the nonprofit Foundation for
    Shackleford Horses. The Foundation, a small and unstaffed organization,
    works cooperatively through a Memorandum of Understanding with the
    National Park Service to manage the herd of wild Colonial Spanish
    Mustangs living on 3,000 acres of Shackleford Banks (an east/west
    island that is part of Cape Lookout National Seashore near Beaufort,
    NC.) These horses are managed in accordance with the Shackleford Banks
    Wild Horses Protection Act as previously mentioned. This Act was also
    sponsored by your colleague, Walter Jones. In 1997, their herd was in
    danger of complete eradication. Called a ``disturbing precedent'' at
    the time by the National Park Service, the 12 years since the passage
    of the Act into Public Law 105-229 have elapsed successfully. The herd
    is maintained at a target population of 120--130 and the day to day
    management of the horses is conducted by the National Park Service
    Wildlife Biologist, Dr. Sue Stuska. The population is controlled
    through the physical removal and adoption of horses most closely
    related to one another and the administration of the non-hormonal
    contraceptive, PZP. ``The horses are thriving and the island's ecology
    is holding its own.'' (The Wild Horses of Shackleford Banks by Carmine
    Prioli, 2007.) (3,000 acres; 120--130 horses)
        I also conducted extensive research on the management of other east
    coast wild horses as well as existing impact studies before making my
    request. The Chincoteague, VA ponies are owned by the Chincoteague
    Volunteer Fire Department and are grazed on two portions of the
    Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge under a Special Use Permit
    between USFWS and the Fire Department. These ponies are managed at a
    herd size of 150 by the Fire Department. They reduce the herd by
    holding an annual auction of foals. The Assateague herd (VA) is managed
    by the National Park Service and maintained at 150 as well. No
    information was available regarding the disposition of any horses
    physically removed from the National Park.
        The Journal of Range Management 57(3) May 2004 published a 1997
    impact study by Drs. Richard D. Rheinhardt and Martha C. Rheinhardt
    titled ``Feral horse seasonal habitat use on a coastal barrier spit.''
    The research was funded by NCNERR and an airplane was furnished by
    USFWS. The objective was to obtain information on the relative
    preference for forage species by season and the seasonal utilization of
    forage habitat by wild horses. The study area extended from the
    northern end of Back Bay Wildlife Refuge in Virginia to Corolla,
    bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the
    Currituck Sound. The entire study area encompassed 11,414 acres.
    Results: ``Horses consume few forb species and graminoid species seem
    to recover from grazing by early summer when primary production is
    highest...Because rooting impacts of feral hogs may be more severe than
    horse grazing impacts on Currituck Banks, exclosure experiments would
    have to be designed to separate horse grazing from hog rooting.''
        The Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt study also included an extensive list
    of plants eaten by wild horses and no plants grazed are included on the
    federal threatened species list. The wild horses of the Currituck Outer
    Banks eat only native vegetation (they are not supplementally fed hay
    or grain) and then reseed it in their manure.
        Refuge Manager, Mike Hoff has pointed out that the endangered
    plant, seabeach amaranth has disappeared from the dunes and has
    suggested that the horses may be responsible for this. Research has
    shown that not only is the seabeach amaranth not eaten by the horses,
    the USFWS website states: ``weather events, rainfall, hurricanes,
    temperature extremes and predation by webworms have strong effects on
    the length of the seabeach amaranth's reproduction season...Seabeach
    amaranth appears to be intolerant of competition and does not occur on
    well vegetated sites. . .The most serious threats to the continued
    existence of seabeach amaranth include the construction of beach
    stabilization structures, beach erosion and tidal inundation, beach
    grooming, herbivory by insects and feral animals and, in certain
    circumstances, by off-road vehicles.'' The north beach is directly
    affected by all of the above.
        If we want to determine impact, we cannot overlook the animal that
    leaves the largest footprint of all--humans. On any given day in July,
    there can be 3,000 vehicles driving on the beach and behind the dunes.
    (Attachment 2--cars driving along refuge dune line) Every day, the
    fragile dunes are compromised by humans walking over them, using them
    for sliding boards, and driving over them in off road vehicles.
    (Attachment 3 people on refuge dunes) It is not the horses that leave
    behind plastic bags, beer bottles, plastic water bottles and other
    trash. It is not the horses' trash near the shore bird nest.
    (Attachment 4--nesting shore bird on refuge and trash) It is not the
    horses that leave deep tire ruts in the sand, or drop oil and other
    contaminates on the beach. (Attachment 5--cement trucks stuck in front
    of refuge)
    Census:
        Before 2006, no official census records were found in CWHF
    archives. Beginning in 2006, aerial counts were conducted by the CWHF
    Herd Manager and the CNWR Manager. Attachment A (Wild Horse Range
    Acreage, Corolla, NC) shows the entire horse range with CNWR and NCNERR
    property delineated.
              2006--119 horses (CWHF Herd Manager, Steve Rogers;
            CNWR Manager, Tim Cooper)
              2007--94 (CWHF Herd Manager, Steve Rogers; CNWR
            Manager, Mike Hoff) 26 horses on CNWR property; 68 on private
            property; 0 on NCNERR
              2008--101 (CWHF Herd Manager, Steve Rogers; CNWR
            Manager, Mike Hoff) 23 horses on CNWR property; 74 on private
            property; 4 on NCNERR
              2009--88 (CWHF Herd Manager, Wesley Stallings; CNWR
            Manager, Mike Hoff) 0 horses on CNWR property; 84 on private
            property; 4 on NCNERR.
              2010--115 (CWHF Herd Manager Wesley Stallings; CNWR
            Manager, Mike Hoff) 35 horses on CNWR property; 71 on private
            property; 9 on NCNERR
        The CWHF Herd Manager maintains a data base of the wild horses with
    photos, descriptions of physical markings and colors; health status,
    and identification of home territory. It is updated at least weekly and
    we have purchased and been working cooperatively with Dr. Sue Stuska,
    NPS, Cape Lookout National Seashore, on utilizing WHIMS (Wild Horse
    Information Software).
        There are 22--23 harems (stallion and 1--4 mares) as well as groups
    of bachelor stallions evenly distributed over the 7,544 acres. Each
    harem stays in its own home region and generally remains there until
    the end of life. Straying from their home territory precipitates
    violent fighting between stallions and results in mares being stolen
    from their family group.
        The CNWR has two areas fenced with high tensile electric wire to
    exclude wild horses. One fence is located in Swan Beach and covers143
    acres. An additional 135-acre fence was constructed in North Swan Beach
    in March of 2010. On March 12, 2010 CWHF Herd Manager Wesley Stallings
    removed 13 wild horses from within the newly fenced area at the request
    of CNWR Manager, Mike Hoff. These 13 horses were then forced into the
    home territory of other existing harems and violent fighting occurred
    for days as dominant stallions fought over mares and attempted to drive
    the intruders from the home area. One pregnant mare from the group
    removed from inside the fence miscarried a foal that would have been
    born in about a month. Another mare, whose body condition was good when
    removed, had to be euthanized a month later after her body condition
    deteriorated dramatically. She was captured by CWHF and an aggressive
    but unsuccessful week long attempt was made to save her life.
    Attachment 6 (a mare from one of the removed harems waiting in vain to
    return to her home.)
        Attachment 7 (vegetation outside 135-acre refuge fence) is a photo
    taken on Thursday, July 22, 2010. The new refuge fence is in the
    background. As you can see, there is no overgrazing outside the fence
    even after five months. Attachment 8 (small exclosure and vegetation)
    is a photo also taken on July 22nd next to one of six 16' X 16'
    exclosures constructed as part of the current NCSU/USFWS study. There
    is also no evidence of overgrazing in these photos, even in last
    summer's drought conditions.
    Wild Horse Management:
        The Corolla Wild Horse Fund is the NGO that physically manages and
    cares for the herd. We currently employ four fulltime staff (executive
    director, herd manager, director of operations, program coordinator),
    and five seasonal staff. Four volunteers serve as Sanctuary Patrol
    Officers who regularly assist with education on the beach and behind
    the dunes. Twenty volunteers are available to assist with captures or
    return of escaped horses. Another group of volunteers assist in our two
    mission related stores and with fund raising activities. We work
    closely with the Currituck Sherriff's Department regarding enforcement
    of the Currituck County Wild Horse Ordinance and any other issues
    regarding the safety of the horses and public. CWHF is on call 24/7,
    365 days a year to respond to emergencies with the horses. We have
    rescued and rehabilitated 19 horses in the last four years and found
    adoptive homes for 38 horses. CWHF maintains a monthly boarding
    contract at a private stable for horses awaiting adoption because they
    cannot be returned to the wild. The CWHF Herd Manager works with the
    horses to domesticate and train them and match them with a loving
    adoptive home. He is a natural horse trainer and a farrier. We
    routinely transport a formerly wild horse to offsite events for
    education and bring a gentled horse awaiting adoption to the grounds of
    our Wild Horse Museum every Wednesday from Memorial Day through
    October. (Attachment 9--children petting rescued and gentled wild
    horse) For the last three years, four formerly wild horses have been
    ridden in the local Fourth of July parade on a street lined with 5,000
    spectators.
        CWHF also transports deceased horses to Raleigh for necropsy and
    covers all associated costs. It is also our responsibility to assist in
    veterinary euthanizations in the field.
        The CWHF Herd Manager maintains all barrier fences including the
    cabled fence out into the ocean and CWHF routinely arranges for the
    accumulated sand to be removed from the cattle guards.
        All expenses related to wild horse management are incurred by CWHF
    with no cost to the federal government. The implementation of H.R. 306
    would not create any horse management costs to the federal government
    as long as the CWHF continues to manage the herd. In 2006, when there
    were 119 horses, no additional CNWR staff was required to address herd
    size. Currituck County contributes 18% of the CWHF's annual budget
    through occupancy taxes and CWHF raises the remaining $346,000 through
    our nationwide membership program, our two mission related stores,
    donations, grants, and special events. Our free Wild Horse Museum
    educates over 75,000 national and international visitors annually. The
    CWHF distributes over 50,000 educational brochures each year, produces
    a quarterly newsletter, and has recently published a book.
        In the last year CWHF has worked cooperatively with the county to
    create and implement a new ordinance prohibiting domestic horses on the
    north beach to eliminate the potential of disease (either housed on
    private property or ridden on the beach); to strengthen the existing
    County Wild Horse Ordinance by adding stronger language; supported
    changes to the County' s Unified Development Ordinance to better
    monitor the actions of commercial horse tours; testified at a public
    hearing against commercial airboat tours in the private canals and
    Currituck Sound; collected and tested water, soil, and plant samples
    from all areas of the north beach; worked with area real estate
    companies to inform all persons renting in the Corolla area about the
    Wild Horse Ordinance; supplied jeep rental companies in Dare County
    with handouts regarding the Wild Horse Ordinance; and coordinated the
    campaign to designate the Colonial Spanish Mustang as the North
    Carolina state horse.
    Land Conservation:
        The CWHF holds 70 acres in a donated conservation easement and we
    are working with a local realtor (who is also a volunteer), to compile
    a list of available land for sale. Many lots have been on the market
    for a considerable time period or are unbuildable.
        The CWHF website lists land donation as a method of helping to
    protect and preserve the wild horses and has initiated the ``Freedom
    Fund,'' a restricted account for the purchase of land to be placed in
    permanent conservation easements for the horses.
        The CWHF Herd Manager is currently working with Currituck County
    Cooperative Extension to determine what types of grasses can be seeded
    in our conservation area for additional use by the horses and is
    exploring methods to cost effectively open up more available grazing
    area in the conservation area.
        The long-term goal of the Corolla Wild Horse Fund is to own
    significant land and place it in permanent conservation easements for
    use by the wild horses and other wildlife. The north beach of the
    Currituck Outer Banks is one of the last remaining underdeveloped
    coastal areas left. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife--including
    wild horses. As someone who travels that area frequently, I am
    constantly reminded how very important it is to protect and preserve
    what is left. I see it weekly and often times daily during the height
    of tourist season.
    Conclusion:
        For nearly 500 years, the wild horses of Corolla have persevered
    against all odds. I never tire of seeing them and I am always moved by
    their strength, intelligence and great beauty. They have a strong sense
    of family and grieve for lost members. Their will to live is
    unparalleled by any other breed of horse. They are without a doubt one
    of the most athletic breeds I have ever encountered. (Attachment 9--
    floating trot of a stallion) These sons and daughters of the sand carry
    a wealth of genetic history that is quickly, not slowly, dying. High
    levels of inbreeding have already produced a few exceptionally small
    horses. We are seeing a decline in the number of foals living to
    adulthood and an increasing number of horses with other abnormalities.
        The North Carolina State Horse will soon disappear from the
    northern Outer Banks. Managing the wild horses of Corolla at a maximum
    of 60 is managing for extinction. This is not just my opinion; it is
    the opinion of two world renowned equine geneticists, Dr. E. Gus
    Cothran and Dr. Phil Sponenberg.
        In response to the April 2008 denial of my request for a larger
    herd size, Dr. Sponenberg, DVM, PhD. (professor of Pathology and
    Genetics, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland Regional
    College of Veterinary Medicine) wrote in an August 5, 2008 e mail to
    me: ``In this, as in other cases, the competing interests need to
    somehow come to an effective compromise. I don't know what that will
    look like, but I do know that if a genetically isolated horse
    population is to be genetically secure for the future, then the total
    population must be much closer to 100 than 60.''
        The Corolla Wild Horse Fund is not asking for hundreds of horses.
    We are asking for a target population of 120--130--the number
    recommended by scientific data generated by an expert in the field.
    This is the same number that has existed on federal property on
    Shackleford Banks for the last 12 years on half the land that is
    available to the wild horses of Corolla.
        In the case of the wild horses of Corolla, just raising the
    allowable herd size alone will not solve the issue of our horses all
    being too closely related to one another. Introductions of mares from
    the Shackleford herd are the only way to breathe new DNA into a gene
    pool headed for certain collapse. I have already had discussions with
    Dr. Stuska and Carolyn Mason and both are in favor of moving mares to
    Corolla when they are available. Two to four mares at a time will be
    sure to become the instant family of a Corolla stallion or two. Their
    offspring would be genetically diverse.
        The Corolla Wild Horse Fund has done an admirable job of managing
    wild horses in a complex and challenging environment with a small staff
    and a core group of dedicated volunteers. Like the wild horses, we are
    determined, and we find strength in their presence. (Attachment 10) I
    am honored to be their voice and ask you today to honor their history
    and protect their future. Please move H.R. 306 forward and save these
    historic horses for future generations to view, admire, and respect.
                                     ______

        [NOTE: A map entitled ``Wild Horse Range Acreage, Corolla,
    NC'' follows. Pictures submitted for the record have been
    retained in the Committee's official files.]

        Dr. Fleming [presiding]. I thank the witnesses this
    morning for your testimonies. At this point we will begin
    questions of the witnesses. Again, to allow our Members to
    participate, Members are limited to five minutes for their
    questions; however, we may have more than one round of
    questioning. I now recognize myself for five minutes. The
    Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation bill included funding for
    Chesapeake Bay projects through the Interior Department, the
    Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the
    Department of Commerce, NOAA, the Department of Labor and the
    EPA. Since all these agencies and programs have different goals
    and missions, here is the question, Dr. Mann, how much
    scientific coordination is there between agency scientists?
        Dr. Mann. I think your statement illustrates the magnitude
    of the problem in terms of trying to develop a coherent
    program. The Chesapeake Bay Executive Order essentially directs
    this. When I look at the grassroots level amongst all the
    scientists who are in the Bay, we are verging on bewildered at
    trying to work out how this all works at the grassroots level
    in terms of trying to provide input back into the planning
    process. I think we have an opportunity here simply because of
    our budget restrictions at this point in time to ask some
    critical questions about how we maximize this productivity per
    dollar invested. I, for one, would be happy to participate in a
    broad interagency discussion to try to coalesce these into a
    more ordered manner. I do not think it is as well done as it
    could be.
        Dr. Fleming. Yes. And that is really a problem
    governmentwide, the desperate need to streamline our research,
    streamline our regulations. We have, well, in fact, there was a
    GAO report just the other day that showed unbelievable
    duplication. It is costly and it actually makes the process
    worse. How much coordination is there between scientists and
    policymakers without outside scientists who may be doing work
    either through Federal grants or through independent research?
        Dr. Mann. I think there is coordination and one of the
    reasons why we have the Scientific Technical Advisory Committee
    is to provide that as a conduit. I think what you see, though,
    when I again talk to a lot of my colleagues is the growth in
    the bureaucracy of the process is really difficult to try to
    have a two way information exchange that is efficient and
    dynamic. Yesterday I was at the Environment Virginia Conference
    in Lexington at VMI, and I was pleased to hear two people make
    the same statement. One of them was Jeff Corbin who is a Senior
    Advisor to the Administrator of the Chesapeake Bay Anacostia
    River Section of EPA, a Federal employee representing EPA, and
    Anthony Moore who is the Assistant Secretary of Natural
    Resources in Virginia. Both of them said what we need is
    flexibility, an adaptive approach, listen to innovative ideas,
    and then we have to get it back into the mechanisms as we go
    through our two year milestone reviews. With a program the size
    of the Chesapeake Bay Program, this is clearly difficult to do,
    but you have to find a mechanism of having that iteration to
    realign the goals, especially when we have a limited amount of
    funds, otherwise we are going to miss targets and we are going
    to miss opportunities.
        Dr. Fleming. Thank you. How will the development of an
    adaptive management plan help the coordination?
        Dr. Mann. It is all about communication. It is as simple as
    that. The better that you communicate and the better that you
    respect, the better off you will be. Adaptive management is one
    way of addressing issues. I think the independent evaluator,
    however, is the other component to it. Scientists have this
    strange way of doing things in that if you have a bright idea,
    you write it down, then you send it off to one of the agencies,
    and then what the agency does is it shares it with everyone
    else. You do not get to keep ideas. Only good ideas survive the
    peer-review process. It seems like a strange way of beating
    yourself up to get through a profession. We are all a little
    bit thick-skinned about this but it is the way in which you go
    forward. What you have to do in taking this philosophy is adopt
    the attitude that someone will come up with a better idea than
    mine and science will progress. It is very difficult to look at
    large programs that have long-term goals where the goal is way
    over there where the scientists keep telling you that in order
    to get here you have to continually move. Flexibility in large
    programs is very difficult. The problem that you have is
    compromising those two goals to make it work more efficiently.
    That is where an independent evaluator's office I think is
    going to be very useful. Again, I go back and I provide the
    examples of the way in which the National Science Foundation
    runs large programs. They do it through a peer-review system
    that is critical and it demands quality. We have other models
    in other parts of the government and we should adopt them here.
    It is about communication.
        Dr. Fleming. I thank the witnesses. I now recognize the
    Ranking Member for any questions he may have. Mr. Sablan?
        Mr. Sablan. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before
    I ask questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for
    unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement on H.R.
    306 submitted by the Nature Conservancy.
        Dr. Fleming. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The letter from the Nature Conservancy follows:]

        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
    just go right to the questions. Mr. Siekaniec. I hope I said
    that right, Greg.
        Mr. Siekaniec. That is correct. Thank you.
        Mr. Sablan. Yes. Let me ask you, what resources would the
    Service currently expend to implement the Currituck Outer Banks
    Wild Horse Management Fund?
        Mr. Siekaniec. Presently, we estimate that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service spends approximately $100,000 of our budget to
    address the management of horses on Currituck National Wildlife
    Refuge. This is primarily comprised of staff time, monitoring
    and fencing costs. In addition to, you know, what we spend sort
    of on an annual budget, we have also taken some steps, last
    year we spent $28,000 to put in place a 143 acre sort of fenced
    exclosure from what we identified as our prime waterfowl
    habitat, sort of the best of the best. We also expended an
    aerial survey, we have $5,000 to complete an aerial survey, and
    we have expended $10,000 on a horse trailer, and dart guns and
    associated equipment.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Notwithstanding this legislation,
    what resources does the Service expect to expend given the
    increasing herd size on the refuge?
        Mr. Siekaniec. Our best estimate is that our budgetary
    needs would rise to approximately $260,000 per year in
    recurring costs. Again, staff time, surveys, capture handling
    costs for horses, vehicles and facility type maintenance.
        Mr. Sablan. All right.
        Mr. Siekaniec. I think there is also an implication of, you
    know, not just the financial costs to us, but the resource
    costs that we are also very concerned with. You know, I think
    we have already heard that the area was identified as a 12,000
    acre horse management area, which I understand already through
    fencing and development has been reduced to 7,700 acres of
    which the refuge represents 4,100 acres, so, as you can see, as
    we reduce this due to private developments that our concern is
    that we are going to start having the majority of the horse use
    and occupancy occurring on the National Wildlife Refuge.
        Mr. Sablan. And if this is enacted, what additional
    resources would the Service expect to spend to implement the
    law?
        Mr. Siekaniec. I had a little trouble hearing your
    question, but you are asking what would we expect to be
    spending?
        Mr. Sablan. Right. Additional expenses if the law were
    enacted. If H.R. 306 were enacted.
        Mr. Siekaniec. Yes. If the law was not enacted we would
    expect that, you know, our budget of $260,000 would need to be
    expanded just for us to be a part of the management operations
    for the Currituck refuge and the wild horses.
        Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms.
    McCalpin, right? Karen, good morning.
        Ms. McCalpin. Good morning.
        Mr. Sablan. Do you have any estimates for how much it will
    cost the Federal Government to manage this wild horse herd
    should H.R. 306 become law? How much of this cost would be
    borne by your organization, please?
        Ms. McCalpin. We bear all of the management costs. I think
    the vehicle and horse trailer that Mr., I am sorry, Siekaniec,
    to which he was referring came from a grant in 2007. We have
    not asked for any other monies after that. I raise about
    $360,000 of our $421,000 budget ourselves. In the future, we
    would not need to request anything from the Service in terms of
    horse management costs. We also bear the cost of all of the
    immunocontraceptive drugs, PZP, which we administer. The guns
    that were acquired for that also came from a $7,000 grant that
    provided us with the horse trailer that we did in partnership
    with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We have a full-time
    herd manager that is on site almost on a daily basis. Also, the
    exclosure fence that put up I thought was part of a grant with
    North Carolina State University.
        Mr. Sablan. So let me take one more shot. So we are saying
    that what you are spending and what they are spending is really
    the actual cost that we are spending to manage the herds right
    now, and that would probably increase with the enactment of
    H.R. 306?
        Ms. McCalpin. I do not see our budget increasing at all
    with the enactment, and I am not really sure, you know, I
    cannot speak for them, but we do the horse management. We are
    the ones that respond to the emergencies. I would also like to
    say that when we do the aerial counts every year, the maximum
    number of horses that have been ever counted on refuge property
    is 35. The rest of them are found on private land. In terms of
    development and the reduction of habitat, when they referred to
    the map, that reduction in acreage was because when the map was
    originally done it included a lot of areas to which the horses
    had no access, and so the new map of 7,500 acres is actual land
    to which the horses have access. It included water and islands
    that the horses were not using.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, ma'am. My time is up, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. Gentleman's time is complete. I now recognize
    Mr. Wittman from Virginia.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    our panelists again for joining us today. I would like to begin
    by asking unanimous consent to submit my full remarks for the
    record and to include supporting letters from Ducks Unlimited
    and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
        Dr. Fleming. Without objection, so ordered.

        [A letter submitted for the record by the Chesapeake Bay
    Foundation follows:]

    April 6, 2011

    The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Mr. Chairman,

        On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, we respectfully request
    that this conditional letter of support for bill H.R. 258, the
    Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2011, introduced by
    Representative Rob Wittman, be submitted for in inclusion into the
    record at the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and
    Insular Affairs scheduled for Thursday, April 7, 2011.
        H.R. 258 includes several elements that we believe further ongoing
    efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The bill would require the
    Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with
    the Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each
    Chesapeake Bay state, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, to submit to
    Congress a financial report containing: an interagency crosscut budget
    for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; an
    accounting of funds received and obligated by all federal agencies for
    restoration activities. In addition, H.R. 258 would require the
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
    and update every three years an adaptive management plan for
    restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed while also
    requiring the appointment of Independent Evaluator for the Chesapeake
    Bay watershed, who review and report to Congress every three years on
    restoration activities and the use of adaptive management in such
    activities.
        H.R. 258 would provide transparency for Congress and the public to
    track ongoing federal, state, and local efforts and expenditures as
    part of Chesapeake Bay restoration activities, which is valuable in its
    own right and would also be useful to furthering public understanding
    of the sources, pathways, and effects of pollution on the Chesapeake
    Bay and its tributaries.
        Our one concern with the text of H.R. 258 is with section three,
    which would require the EPA Administrator to develop a time-consuming
    report on Chesapeake Bay restoration activities, presumably at the
    federal as well as the state and local levels. In the year 2000, the
    Federal Government and the Chesapeake Bay States agreed to work
    together to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the recovery
    and restoration of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. More than ten
    years later, at the end of 2010, the Federal Government, six states,
    and the District of Columbia finally ushered in this new era of
    cooperation when they released detailed plans to reduce Chesapeake Bay
    pollution to restore water quality over the next fifteen years.
        We believe that the states are the appropriate authors for the
    types of detailed adaptive management plans envisioned in HR 258, and
    that a great deal of work has already been done by them. As a
    consequence, we believe that the bill language should be somewhat
    modified to direct the Administrator to ensure that the next iteration
    of the states' plans include the various criteria listed in the bill.
    The language could further state that the Federal Leadership Committee,
    which the Administrator chairs, should include similar criteria in its
    Annual Action Plan and Annual Progress Report required by Executive
    Order 13508. In our view, these modest changes would allow
    Representative Wittman's legislation to be more supportive of state-
    level planning and avoid duplication of work that has already been done
    to a large degree.
        We acknowledge and applaud the efforts of Representative Wittman
    and the other cosponsors of the bill to further the restoration of the
    Chesapeake Bay and its many tributaries, and we look forward to
    continuing to work with him and the other members of the House Natural
    Resources Committee on H.R. 258. We urge the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
    Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs to modify the legislation along
    the lines suggested above and then favorably report the legislation to
    the full House Natural Resources Committee.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Doug Siglin
    Director of Federal Affairs
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation
                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by Ducks Unlimited,
    Annapolis, Maryland, on H.R. 258 follows:]

        Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Dr. Mann, again, thank you for
    your testimony today and for your service to the citizens of
    Virginia, especially in your work there at VIMS. I wanted to
    follow up from your last comment where you talked about the
    independent evaluator and the utility of an independent
    evaluator in looking at how to evaluate restoration activities
    and the implementation of adaptive management. I want to get
    your overall view about how do you think an independent
    evaluator could best be utilized in this process of looking at
    what is happening, making sure that that independent evaluator
    is shaping decisionmaking at the agency level.
        Dr. Mann. Let me respond to that by giving the example of
    what we do at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Over
    our 60 year history, we have a task that is spread throughout
    the code of Virginia to provide independent advisory review of
    issues for the Governor, for his cabinet, for the General
    Assembly, for the state agencies, for the citizens of the
    Commonwealth and further afield as requested. This footprint
    covers everything from the size of flounder that you can take
    to whether or not a gas pipeline should be put underneath the
    James River, to the large scale development and economic and
    ecological impacts of reservoirs, and at this point in time we
    are actually working with the Commonwealth and other state
    agencies on siting for what could be some of the largest wind
    power windmills anywhere in the world. We have a broad swath of
    expertise and our role is to provide independent scientific
    assessment. Now, these are not always popular. When we
    essentially guarded against the development of the King William
    Reservoir, before I got back to my office there were calls to
    the president of the university to have me fired. The point is
    is that we provide this independent evaluation, you do it
    publicly and you do it into the agencies at the point where
    they can best use that information, and you do it critically
    and without bias. It is a matter of communication and it is a
    matter of being honest, and if you do not like what you are
    going to hear from us, you are going to hear it anyway. This is
    how scientific review works. I think there is opportunity
    within the Bay program structure to do that. I think our
    history of doing this as an institution using the broad base of
    expertise that is available to us shows that we can contribute
    in just the same way to the Bay programs. So review is not the
    problem. Get us the information. If we cannot review it, we
    will find you somebody who can and we will provide the input in
    the other direction, and from there on, you have a
    conversation.
        Mr. Wittman. So it sounds like what you are saying is that
    an institution like VIMS would be particularly well-suited to
    play this independent evaluator role by looking at the science
    and to be a purveyor of that information, to be the facilitator
    of communication back and forth between the decisionmakers and
    the agencies, those folks having to implement parts of the
    Chesapeake Bay Act, and looking at what works, what does not
    and then using science as the foundation to determine how
    decisionmaking takes place, which, as you pointed out earlier,
    especially in days of resource challenges, we cannot afford to
    be taking wrong tracks that expend significant amounts of money
    that do not produce results. So I just wanted to get your
    thoughts along those lines.
        Dr. Mann. In a sentence, I would be happy to offer the
    resources of the institution toward this end.
        Mr. Wittman. OK. Very good. I wanted to get your thoughts,
    too, on why adaptive management as a model or as a paradigm is
    particularly applicable to complex environmental systems like
    the Bay. As we know, the Bay has many, many different aspects
    to it, and wanted to get your thoughts about why adaptive
    management would be a better paradigm than the existing
    paradigm that is being used to implement Bay programs and to
    attempt to achieve results, whether it is in restoration of
    natural resources or improvement in water quality and those
    types of areas.
        Dr. Mann. I have commented on the fact that the Bay is a
    changing environment. Let me give you one example. Twenty-five
    years in one minute. Twenty-five years ago the striped bass
    populations in the Chesapeake Bay were extraordinarily
    depressed. Based upon a comprehensive and peer-reviewed
    numerical model, population dynamics, extraordinary measures
    were taken to rebuild the population, including moratoriums on
    fishing. Those people who enjoy striped bass fishing now, they
    know that it worked. We are done? No, we are not. About 10
    years ago, many of the striped bass started to appear with
    huge, red lesions on the outside of them, truly grotesque red
    lesions, and everybody said it is a new disease that has come
    in, we should be worrying about a new disease. What did we
    learn from adaptive management?
        It turns out that this disease is caused by something
    called mycobacterium. It turns out that mycobacterium is
    present in most of the striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay, in
    just the same way as you carry around the cold bugs. It is when
    you get stressed in the winter that it manifests itself and you
    start sneezing. So what we have learned is is that these
    animals that we thought were free may, in fact, carry a very
    low level of an infectious disease, but why did this infectious
    disease suddenly manifest itself after a long period of time?
    It turns out that this might be due to the fact that the low
    oxygen pools in the bottom of the Bay are getting bigger.
        What has that got to do with striped bass? They use deep
    water, cold water, as refuges in the summer. If they cannot go
    into the refuges, they live in high temperatures. If they are
    in high temperatures, then the disease manifests itself. What
    we have here is an extraordinarily complex web that just deals
    with one species. So how do you manage striped bass now as
    opposed to how you did it 25 years ago? You need to incorporate
    into the management plan a component that deals with disease.
    That is adaptive management--taking new information, adding it
    back in, refining what you do, going forward and being prepared
    to change it again if it does not work.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good.
        Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. Next up is Mr.
    Southerland from Florida.
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    thank all the witnesses for being here today. I want to ask, if
    I could, Dr. Hutchins, as far as the horses and the herd that
    we are discussing today, is it not possible that the horses
    arrived on these shores long before some of the other species
    that you are committed to protecting in the refuge?
        Dr. Hutchins. Well, that is unlikely. I mean, the horses
    arrived there approximately 500 years ago, as pointed out. That
    is just a drop in time when you are talking about geological
    time.
        Mr. Southerland. But we do not know, do we?
        Dr. Hutchins. I am sure that most of our native species
    have been here for millennia.
        Mr. Southerland. Is it true, though, that in your statement
    you said in a perfect scenario the Federal horses should be
    removed from the refuge altogether? I mean, is the Wildlife
    Service, are you interested in them disappearing at all, I
    mean, that they would totally be removed and you would not have
    to deal with this issue at all?
        Dr. Hutchins. In a perfect world, yes.
        Mr. Southerland. OK. Based on that, then if you are
    managing at 60, then you would literally be, in your perfect
    environment you would be managing this herd to extinction,
    correct?
        Dr. Hutchins. Well, we have talked a little bit about the
    genetic diversity in this herd which could easily be maintained
    by bringing in animals on a regular basis from outside that
    herd.
        Mr. Southerland. Right.
        Dr. Hutchins. You can maintain small, isolated populations
    genetically through that technique.
        Mr. Southerland. I am curious about your philosophy that
    these are feral and they are pests. Obviously, you know, the
    foundation of this country, I mean, in your belief, that
    definition of feral, definition of pest, I guess it could also
    be said that the White man, the Caucasian, is feral.
        Dr. Hutchins. Well, if you wanted to take it that far.
        Mr. Southerland. I am serious. No, no, no, no, no.
        Dr. Hutchins. This is a very different situation.
        Mr. Southerland. No, no, no. But based on your definition
    that they were not here 500 years ago, we are feral.
        Dr. Hutchins. Well, let me just say that----
        Mr. Southerland. That is a yes or no. I am running out of
    time.
        Dr. Hutchins. It is a no.
        Mr. Southerland. Really?
        Dr. Hutchins. Well, I mean, humans are the most adaptive
    species that is on this planet. We have gone everywhere on our
    own. We have not, you know, been removed around artificially,
    which is what we have done with other species. I might notice,
    or note that one of the issues that came up here was the impact
    of humans on the island ecosystem, but these results are
    cumulative. When you are getting non-native species and the
    impacts of humans on these sensitive habitats there are
    cumulative impacts that can really seriously affect our native
    wildlife. It really comes down to values. Do we really value
    our native wildlife and our refuges----
        Mr. Southerland. Right.
        Dr. Hutchins.--or are we going to create theme parks for
    non-native species.
        Mr. Southerland. Well, I think, sir, you made a great
    argument, though, for the Native Americans, OK? I think we
    should be on the reservations, OK? This was their land, OK,
    when we got here, OK? I think that if you take your theory, OK,
    which I think is a theory, and apply that to the way the
    country was founded, I think that the Caucasians, the
    Hispanics, the Asians, the Spanish-Americans, that we would be,
    by your definition, feral and clearly pests to the Native
    Americans. I want to ask, and Siekaniec? Is that? I apologize
    if I pronounced that wrong. You know, obviously it has been
    stated that people come--I remember when I was 12 years old my
    grandparents took me up there to see these horses and to see,
    you know, horses like this on the barrier islands, swim the
    channels, and I mean it was fascinating. It is a huge economic
    impact. If, in your world, there was an extinction and they
    were removed and not there, what is the economic impact on
    jobs, small businesses, heads in beds, I mean really cranking
    the economy, what is the negative impact of, in your world,
    these horses not being there at all? Do we know that?
        Mr. Siekaniec. I do not have information that would lead us
    to an economic analysis having been done on whether they would
    be present or absent.
        Mr. Southerland. Right. So if we do not know the economic
    impact, and the negative economic impact, then it seems like
    you are pursuing a policy that would be like ready, shoot, aim,
    and so I would, I just, I find it amazing that we have total
    disregard, OK, to humans since we have the ability to adapt. I
    mean, you are asking us to adapt in a way that I think is very
    unfair and I think it is irresponsible. Finally to you, Ms.
    McCalpin, thank you for your efforts. I think these horses have
    great value. I think they are part of the culture here. Five
    hundred years. They were here welcoming us when we got here. I
    applaud them for their longevity and their ability to adapt. I
    think this is perhaps the strongest challenge they have, to
    adapt to people that would love to see them become extinct. So
    I know I am over my time, but, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I think we
    are all still very interested in these subjects so we would
    like to have another round if the witnesses would hang with us.
    We may be up against a vote in a few minutes so we will try to
    go ahead and squeeze this round in. I will begin the second
    round. Ms. McCalpin, in your testimony you mention that written
    record of these horses arrived on the Outer Banks of North
    Carolina dates back to 1520.
        Ms. McCalpin. Yes, sir.
        Dr. Fleming. The Fish and Wildlife Service has consistently
    referred to these horses as pests or feral domestic animals,
    but the Service is committed to protecting another historic
    species at the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge that arrived
    after the Corolla horses. Let me say parenthetically here, last
    year we had hearings and a bill was passed out of here that
    increased the range for feral donkeys and horses out West which
    is being paid for by taxpayers, or would be should that come to
    fruition. On the other hand, as I understand it, this is a
    program that is being supported privately. So I am really a bit
    mystified and befuddled about this sort of double standard that
    we seem to have, so I would first of all ask how long does a
    species have to be here in the United States before the Fish
    and Wildlife Service gives them a green card?
        Ms. McCalpin. I cannot answer that, sir.
        Dr. Fleming. Sorry. Tough question. I apologize. Are you
    asking for, or do you anticipate asking the Federal Government
    for funding to implement H.R. 306?
        Ms. McCalpin. No, sir. Not a dime.
        Dr. Fleming. OK. The witness shakes her head no. Do you
    have any plans for land acquisition?
        Ms. McCalpin. In fact, we have just initiated the Green
    Fund. Now is a great time for us to be acquiring land.
    Unfortunately, with the economy, there are a lot of people that
    are sitting on land that is going into foreclosure, so our
    board has voted to move forward with a very concerted effort on
    trying to acquire land both through grants and through
    donations, and that land would be put into conservation
    easements so that it would be permanently available not just to
    the wild horses, but to all the wildlife.
        Dr. Fleming. OK. It is my understanding that the
    Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge allows grazing on two
    tracts for up to 150 ponies through a special use permit with
    the nonprofit Chincoteague Fire Department.
        Ms. McCalpin. That is correct.
        Dr. Fleming. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service objected to
    the management of these ponies?
        Ms. McCalpin. I am not aware of that. We have not had any
    of those discussions in the Wild Horse Advisory Board meetings
    that we have.
        Dr. Fleming. So certainly you have no knowledge of any
    objections that they have----
        Ms. McCalpin. No, and that is an activity that has been
    going on for quite a number of years.
        Dr. Fleming. Where do the ponies live?
        Ms. McCalpin. They live on the wildlife refuge in two
    separate tracts.
        Dr. Fleming. All right. What is the cost to the Service to
    manage the ponies?
        Ms. McCalpin. In Chincoteague?
        Dr. Fleming. Yes.
        Ms. McCalpin. I do not know the answer to the question. I
    believe the cost is primarily incurred by the Chincoteague Fire
    Department, similarly to the Corolla Wild Horse Fund incurring
    the cost for managing the wild horses on Currituck.
        Dr. Fleming. Yes. Mr. Siekaniec, do you know what the cost
    is?
        Mr. Siekaniec. On Chincoteague refuge I do not have an
    estimate of what the costs are. I do have a little bit of
    information that sort of describes the relationship between us
    and the fire, the group that actually administers the horses.
    The horses do, they are on the refuge for a period of time, but
    they are also off the refuge for a period of time. We have
    actually entered into a successful management plan so we have a
    very clear understanding of how many horses would be on the
    refuge at what particular points in time and it is administered
    through a special use permit, and there was a point in time
    when we did recognize there was a lot of damage being done by
    horses on the Chincoteague refuge, which is how we had to end
    up in a management strategy plan. Through our comprehensive
    conservation plan, we now recognize that the best approach for
    management----
        Dr. Fleming. Well, let me interrupt you a moment because I
    am running out of time. Just, if you would, sir, explain to me
    why these are a species of ponies that certainly we treasure,
    and on the other hand the Corolla horses are pests that we seem
    not to want to try to support. Can you give me an idea of why
    we--I mean, this seems to be so internally inconsistent and
    contradictory.
        Mr. Siekaniec. Yes. Well, I think what we actually do is we
    would view the horses at Chincoteague as well as feral wild
    horses, just like we would at Currituck. We have entered into a
    very successful management plan at Chincoteague. We have a
    management plan that we have entered into at Currituck that we
    believe can be very successful. What we are really arguing
    about is the number. We believe that a number of 110 to 120
    would probably over stress the habitats associated with the
    amount available at Currituck. I believe Chincoteague has
    13,000 acres available. Currituck is now 4,000 refuge and an
    additional three in the private land surrounding. So we have
    just two different relationships.
        Dr. Fleming. My understanding is that three of the four
    signatories on that disagree with that. Anyway, my time is done
    so I thank the witnesses. I now yield to the Ranking Member for
    five minutes, sir.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a
    time when I am actually glad I come from islands, and 14
    islands, I represent 14. Three of the islands are actually full
    conservation islands. People, individuals, whether you are
    Chamorro or Caucasian, you are not allowed on the island. We
    keep it for the birds, and the coconut crabs and things like
    that, so I do not have this problem. Dr. Mann, I mean, I am
    sorry, Dr. Hutchins, please. Do you have any concerns about the
    genetic viability of the herds?
        Dr. Hutchins. Well, once again, genetic viability,
    certainly small populations are susceptible to the loss of
    genetic diversity fairly rapidly because of inbreeding
    concerns. However, that can be taken care of by the occasional
    immigration of a few animals that would introduce, you know,
    genetic diversity into the herd. So I would not be that
    concerned about it. I think if it was an enclosed population
    that was there for a long time without the introduction of new
    genetic diversity, then it would be a concern. If new diversity
    can be introduced to the herd, it is not a concern.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much. Dr. Mann, can you please
    explain or elaborate on what resources are needed by the
    scientific community to improve upon existing models and to be
    able to communicate those results to the stakeholders of the
    Chesapeake Bay.
        Dr. Mann. Synthesis in terms of models is something that we
    can do using the data that is available. Support for those
    synthesis is relatively modest in terms of actual processing
    data that is available. That will I think be a very good place
    to start. Communication is something that scientists do not
    always do well, but it is something that we should be tasked
    with. It is matter of communicating with both the Federal
    offices and with the public in terms of stakeholders. It is
    something that I do a lot of in my role as an advisory service
    director. Not all of the science community does it well. It
    should be part of our mandate to do that. I think if you wish
    to reengage the science community in this, a general statement
    from this Committee that this is something that is important in
    terms of progressing with the Executive Order to get there, I
    think the community will respond.
        Mr. Sablan. And because we are all dealing with
    conservation here, Mr. Chairman, I do not have to use up my
    time. I yield back the remainder.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Next up for
    questions is the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to
    Dr. Mann again and pick up where you left off in talking about
    adaptive management. I want to take that to the next step. You
    talked very eloquently about making sure that the partners in
    Bay restorations are engaged and that there are communications
    back and forth and how critical that is in decisionmaking, and
    to make sure that there are actually results being achieved. I
    want to ask you, you have an awful lot of experience in dealing
    with agencies there in Virginia, both state agencies and the
    Federal agencies, in many of these restoration activities, and
    in that experience are there any examples that you can cite,
    and maybe even recent examples, where there has not been that
    kind of cooperation or where we could be better at engagement
    and communications and making decisions about restoration
    activities, or water quality improvement, whatever it may be? I
    was just wondering if you might be able to share an example
    with us where that is critical to decisionmaking and outcomes.
        Dr. Mann. I think there are probably two very good examples
    where the pointed end of the stick is getting shoved in both
    directions at the moment. One of them is the TMVL debate which
    got to be quite testy and has now, I think, been resolved
    through a very good line of communication, I keep using that,
    between the state agencies and the EPA. This is total maximum
    daily loads. I think we are making progress there. If you want
    an example in the natural resource area, it is impossible to
    talk about the Chesapeake Bay without talking about oysters.
    Oyster restoration is probably one of the continuing
    controversies. If you look at the words in the Executive Order,
    20 estuaries by 2025, I mean this is an extraordinarily bold
    goal. I mean, John Kennedy set bold goals to fly to the moon
    and back. When I talked about the striped bass example, the
    decisions on the moratorium on striped bass were based on a
    very comprehensive understanding of biology and a strong peer-
    reviewed mathematical model. We do not have one of those for
    oysters, and so at the moment, we are setting goals and we are
    setting strategies based on those. Now, the current NOAA
    strategy is to invest in sanctuaries. During my career in
    restoration I have been a strong proponent of these areas to
    keep out fishermen. Sanctuaries are great, and, in fact, they
    are used well in wildlife biology. There is also an attitude
    that if you invest in continuing to rebuild areas that are
    subject to fishing but limit fishing, you might also increase
    populations by this approach in areas that are not sanctuaries.
    You control access to them. I have also been a proponent of
    that. I have worked with the National Marine Fisheries on these
    sorts of things for 20 plus years. So there are two approaches
    here. Which one are you going to use? Well, in a period of
    unlimited resources, let us do both. We are not in a period of
    unlimited resources, and that is what is critical at the moment
    to have an active debate between the NOAA approach, it is not
    that this is wrong, or the state approach, and it is not that
    that is wrong either, it is just that if you have a limited
    amount of money, then each put forward a proposal and then have
    it reviewed by entities outside of the Chesapeake Bay or
    independent of this, this is the independent evaluator, and let
    them decide and give some guidance back as to how we could best
    invest where we are looking at a future of trying to build on
    relatively modest investments that are dictated by your budget.
    I think this is an example where I am not trying to gore
    anybody's ox, but it is where an active debate, peer-review, an
    independent evaluator and holding everyone accountable, this is
    an example where we can do this. Thank you.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. It appears that all
    questions have been asked today. I would like to again thank
    the witnesses for their valuable testimony and for their
    appearance before this Subcommittee today. Members of the
    Subcommittee may have additional questions and we may ask that
    you respond to these in writing. The hearing record will stay
    open for 10 days to receive these responses. I want to thank
    Members and staff for their contributions to this hearing. If
    there is no further business, without objection, the
    Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]