[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.]