[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
CONSERVATION PLAN (CCP)
FOR THE CHINCOTEAGUE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT 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
SECOND SESSION
__________
Friday, February 17, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-95
__________
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
72-939 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
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 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 Paul Tonko, NY
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
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 Friday, February 17, 2012........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen W., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Hawaii........................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Chesson, S. Scott, Owner, Best Western Plus, Chincoteague
Island, Virginia........................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Harris, Hon. Andy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, Oral statement of....................... 5
Payne, Nancy, Owner, Clouds Gallery, Chincoteague Island,
Virginia................................................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Rigell, Hon. E. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Letter to Dan Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, submitted for the record...................... 48
Tarr, Hon. Jack, Mayor, Town of Chincoteague, Virginia....... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Thornton, Hon. Wanda J., Member, Accomack County Board of
Supervisors................................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Weber, Wendi, Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Additional materials supplied:
House Joint Resolution No. 226, 112th Congress............... 50
Lewis, Ted, President, Chincoteague Chamber of Commerce,
Chincoteague Island, Virginia, Letter to The Honorable Jack
Tarr, Mayor, Town of Chincoteague, submitted for the record 51
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 52
Resolution of Accomack County Board of Supervisors approved
February 15, 2012, submitted for the record................ 52
Resolution of Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, approved
December 5, 2011, submitted for the record................. 53
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN (CCP)
FOR THE CHINCOTEAGUE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.
----------
Friday, February 17, 2012
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 notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Wittman, Harris; and
Hanabusa.
Also Present: Representative Rigell.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee will come to order.
The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will
conduct an oversight hearing on the proposed Comprehensive
Conservation Plan, or CCP, for the Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge in Virginia. During the past year, we have
heard repeatedly from the Fish and Wildlife Service that the
reason they recommend no funding for the refuge revenue-sharing
program is because refuges are economic engines for the local
economies.
In this particular case, there is no question that the
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and the 1.4 million
people who visit it each year are critical to the economic
vitality to the Town of Chincoteague. Each summer, families
travel to Chincoteague to enjoy its beautiful beaches and to
gaze upon some 125 descendants of Spanish mustangs which have
lived on the island for some 400 years.
These are ponies that were memorialized in Marguerite
Henry's 1947 book, ``Misty of Chincoteague.'' It is therefore
not surprising that the congressman who represents this
community, the Town Council of Chincoteague, the local Chamber
of Commerce, and I am told the overwhelming majority of the
residents were aghast to learn that the Fish and Wildlife
Service is considering management alternatives, which they
believe will have a devastating economic impact on their town.
Among the proposals being considered is closing the
existing recreational beach, building new parking facilities,
and establishing a shuttle service from a remote location miles
from the existing beach, and reducing the size of the pony
herd.
From my perspective, what is most disturbing is that
despite the fact that the CCP will not be completed until at
least 2013, the Service has already started to implement their
changes. They have telegraphed their intentions by seeking up
to $7 million in Federal grants from the Paul Sarbanes Transit
in the Parks Program, by indicating their desire to reduce the
size of the pony herd, and by signing a contract to purchase
the Maddox family campground.
The fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service is moving
forward with one option while at the same time telling the
public that they are reviewing all options is certainly at
least contrary to the spirit of the National Environmental
Policy Act.
This process lacks transparency and indicates an
unwillingness to work with either small businesses or the local
Chincoteague community, and begs the question as to when this
Administration will stop placing the welfare of its bureaucracy
over the welfare of the citizens.
At a minimum, the public must be given an opportunity to
comment on the proposed draft environmental impact statement
before and not after the agency implements its preference. To
do otherwise is simply unacceptable and will prompt further
congressional inquiries.
I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses. I
want to now recognize the Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentlelady from the Commonwealth--I am
sorry----
Ms. Hanabusa. We are a state.
Dr. Fleming [continuing]. From Hawaii. We were expecting
Mr. Sablan, who is from the CNMI, and so I am having to go off
script here because Ms. Hanabusa from Hawaii, which is, by the
way, a state, if anyone hasn't heard----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming [continuing]. Will be sitting in his place.
So with that, I will yield to the gentlelady from Hawaii.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight
hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan or CCP for the
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia.
During the past year, we have heard repeatedly from the Fish and
Wildlife Service that the reason they recommend no funding for the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Program is because refuges are economic engines
for their local communities.
In this particular case, there is no question that the Chincoteague
National Wildlife Refuge and the 1.4 million people who visit it each
year are critical to the economic vitality of the Town of Chincoteague.
Each summer, families travel to Chincoteague to enjoy its beautiful
beaches and to gaze upon some 125 descendants of Spanish mustangs which
have lived on the Island for some 400 years. These are ponies that were
memorialized in Marguerite Henry's 1947 book ``Misty of Chincoteague''.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Congressman who
represents this community, the Town Council of Chincoteague, the local
Chamber of Commerce and I am told the overwhelming majority of
residents, were aghast to learn that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
considering management alternatives which they believe will have a
devastating economic impact on their town.
Among the proposals being considered is closing the existing
recreational beach, building new parking facilities and establishing a
shuttle service from a remote location miles from the existing beach,
and reducing the size of the pony herd.
From my perspective, what is most disturbing, is that despite the
fact that the CCP will not be completed until at least 2013, the
Service has already started to implement their changes. They have
telegraphed their intentions by seeking up to $7 million in federal
grants from the Paul Sarbanes Transit in the Parks Program, by
indicating their desire to reduce the size of the pony herd, and by
signing a contract to purchase the Maddox Family Campground.
The fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service is moving forward with
one option, while at the same time telling the public that they are
reviewing all options, is certainly contrary to at least the spirit of
the National Environmental Policy Act. This process lacks transparency
and indicates an unwillingness to work with either small businesses or
the local Chincoteague community and begs the question as to when this
administration will stop placing the welfare of its bureaucracy over
the welfare of the citizenry. At a minimum the public must be given an
opportunity to comment on the proposed Draft Environment Impact
Statement before and not after the agency implements its preference. To
do otherwise, is simply unacceptable and will prompt further
Congressional inquiries.
I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses and want to
now recognize the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee, the
gentleman from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Congressman Sablan.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Chairman Fleming. Some people
actually believe we are probably the best state, especially us.
As mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, the Chincoteague National Wildlife
Refuge of Assateague Island is managed for the protection and
conservation of wildlife. This includes the endangered Delmarva
fox squirrel and threatened species including the Atlantic
Coast piping plover, the Atlantic loggerhead turtle, and the
plant the seabeach amaranth.
The pristine beauty of this natural barrier island is
unparalleled, making it one of the Nation's most visited
refuges, with 1.4 million visitors a year. People travel to
Chincoteague for its recreational beach, the wild horse
population, and it is a major stopover for migratory birds.
During the summer tourist season, the refuge brings in about
$42 million to the Town itself.
The refuge is currently drafting a new Comprehensive
Conservation Plan, or as the Chairman said, the CCP, to replace
the existing planning document, the 1992 Master Plan. Fish and
Wildlife Service has completed initial scoping of stakeholder
concerns and has developed three management alternatives.
Of great concern today is one aspect common to all
management alternatives, the addition of a satellite parking
lot with shuttle bus to supplement the amount of parking
available at the recreational beach.
Assateague is a barrier island shaped by dynamic coastal
processes, causing natural beach erosion during storms. Storms
regularly alter recreational beach and destroy the parking lot
used by the visitors. Since 1938, Chincoteague has experienced
over a foot of sea level rise, and the parking lot is
increasingly vulnerable to increasing storm frequency and
intensity.
Recognizing these vulnerabilities, the 1992 Master Plan
included provisions to supplement the beach parking with a
satellite location on Chincoteague Island and shuttle transit
to transport visitors to the beach. Restoring and maintaining
this beach parking in the current location is expensive and
risky.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been able to rebuild the
lot with the help of Federal funding from the Department of
Transportation's Emergency Funding Relief for Federally Owned
Roads Program. They estimate that they have spent nearly $2.4
million repairing parking lots on this site in the past four
years alone. Destruction as a result of Hurricane Irene this
last summer cost $862,000, and the beach was closed to cars for
the last week of the summer tourist season.
There is concern that the refuge won't qualify for
emergency funding year after year. The Service, working under
the authority of the 1992 Master Plan, applied for and was
awarded a $1.5 million grant to purchase from willing sellers
for the satellite parking lot. This lot would only supplement
the beach parking outlined in all CCP options.
This Committee has oversight of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and during these financially austere times, it seems
to me to be responsible governing to stop pouring taxpayer
dollars into a parking lot that will wash away with more
frequency, and instead invest in a long-term solution.
Refuges generate $150 in local economic activity for every
dollar it costs to run a refuge. Having expanded parking
capacity will only increase the value of the refuge to the
local economy.
I want to thank the witnesses, and look forward to hearing
from them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Colleen Hanabusa, Acting Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Thank you, Chairman Fleming.
As mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge on Assateague Island is
managed for the protection and conservation of wildlife. This includes
the endangered Delmarva fox squirrel, and threatened species including
the Atlantic Coast piping plover, Atlantic loggerhead turtle, and the
plant, seabeach amaranth. The pristine beauty of this natural barrier
island is unparalleled making it one of the nation's most visited
refuges with 1.4 million visits a year. People travel to Chincoteague
for its recreational beach, the wild horse population and as a major
stop-over for migratory birds. During the summer tourist season, the
refuge brings in $42 million dollars to the Town of Chincoteague.
The refuge is currently drafting a new Comprehensive Conservation
Plan to replace the current planning document, the 1992 Master Plan.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has completed initial scoping of
stakeholder concerns and has developed 3 management alternatives. Of
great concern today is one aspect common to all management
alternatives: the addition of a satellite parking lot with shuttle bus
to supplement the amount of parking available at the recreational
beach.
Assateague is a barrier island shaped by dynamic coastal processes
causing natural beach erosion during storms. Storms regularly alter the
recreational beach and destroy the parking lot used by visitors. Since
1938, Chincoteague has experienced over a foot of sea level rise and
the parking lot is increasingly vulnerable to increasing storm
frequency and intensity. Recognizing these vulnerabilities, the 1992
Master Plan included provisions to supplement the beach parking with a
satellite location on Chincoteague Island and shuttle transit to
transport visitors to the beach.
Restoring and maintaining this beach parking in the current
location is expensive and risky. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been
able to rebuild the lot with the help of federal funding from the
Department of Transportation's Emergency Funding Relief for Federally
Owned Roads program. They estimate that they have spent nearly 2.4
million dollars repairing parking lots on this site in the past 4
years. Destruction as a result of Hurricane Irene alone this last
summer cost $862,000 and the beach was closed to cars for the last week
of the summer tourist season. There is concern that the refuge won't
qualify for emergency funding year after year.
The Service, working under the authority of the 1992 Master Plan,
applied for and was awarded a $1.5 million dollar grant to purchase
land from willing sellers for the satellite parking lot. This lot would
only supplement the beach parking outlined in all CCP options. This
Committee has oversight over the Fish and Wildlife Service and during
these financially austere times, it seems to me to be responsible
governing to stop pouring tax payer dollars into a parking lot that
will wash away with more frequency and instead invest in a long term
solution. Refuges generate $150 in local economic activity for every $1
it costs to run refuges. Having expanded parking capacity will only
increase the value of the refuge to the local economy.
I thank the witnesses and look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady. I will make an
editorial comment. I heard that figure $800,000. We actually
looked into that, and what we came up with on Nor'easter Ida
was $34,038.75, and for Hurricane Irene, $69,033.80.
So it looks like a tremendous difference from what we
actually find from the records and what has been reported. So
maybe that is something that our witnesses will be able to
resolve for us.
Before I go forward, I want to mention that we will
probably get called for votes at 10:00. And what we are going
to try to do is try to get everyone's testimony in, and
certainly comments from other Members this morning, try to
squeeze that in before we leave for that vote. Then we will
come right back--I think it is only one vote--and then we will
go into the question-and-answer period.
So that is the plan, but as you know, things don't go
according to plan often around here. But at least we have a
plan.
Based on the traditions of this Subcommittee, I would now
like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from the 1st
District of Maryland, Congressman Andy Harris, a fellow
physician, who represents the Maryland side of the refuge, for
any opening statement he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDY HARRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding the hearing. Of course, Maryland's 1st
Congressional District does border on the north side, and we of
course have Assateague, the companion park to Chincoteague.
Mr. Chairman, you know, we are having the same problem in
Assateague as well--a plan that seeks to remove the parking
that is available near the beach. I mean, it is clear that the
goal of the Federal Government that controls these tourist
areas is, in the long term, to make sure that no one can park
near where they are going to enjoy the beach.
That is a real shame because it is a driver for millions
and millions of dollars of tourism revenue, as I think we are
going to hear from the panel today. There are 1.5 million
visitors, is the testimony, to Chincoteague. And, you know,
let's say the figures are right and it costs between $200,000
and $700,000 to replace a parking lot after a major event. That
would be less than 50 cents per visitor.
So I don't understand this. You are going to spend $7.5
million acquiring a piece of property. You are going to have to
create a shuttle system. You are going to have to inconvenience
users to use a shuttle system. It begs the obvious question:
Why don't you just give the visitors the choice? Maybe we ought
to poll the visitors, ask them, would you rather pay 50 cents
more and park near the beach or be inconvenienced by having
your family take a shuttle--develop a shuttle system, spend $7-
1/2 million to buy a piece of property?
And then on top of that, what is also of concern to me is
the plans that have been proposed that would require thinning
the horse herd if you go to that plan. And some of the plans,
Mr. Chairman, honestly, to thin the horse herd involve just
euthanizing the horses.
As the testimony, I think, we will have is, these horses
have been around for centuries. And now--because, again, the
Federal Government is going to decide how people are going to
enjoy the beach, they are also going to decide how these horses
are going to live into the future.
Mr. Chairman, it seems like, again, there is this
overwhelming desire to pretend that we are going to return the
United States to the condition it was 300 years ago. Those just
aren't the facts. People want to go to the beach. People from
my district want to drive a little south, I am disappointed to
say sometimes. They want to go into Virginia and they want to
enjoy the beach down there.
And what they are going to have to do now is it is going to
make it much more difficult for American citizens, taxpaying
citizens, to enjoy the lands that are owned and operated by the
U.S. Government. It is exactly the reverse of what--these lands
are for the enjoyment of Americans, not for some plan that
says, we are going to restore it to its native state.
We are going to pretend that people don't want to visit
there. And worse than that, Mr. Chairman, when we should be
encouraging industry, encouraging tourism, encouraging economic
activity, it is pretty clear that the plans being proposed both
to the south in Chincoteague as well as some of the plans to
the north in Assateague would in fact do the opposite.
So Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very, very much for
holding this hearing. As you know we have discussed, I have
another hearing I will have to attend. But I look forward to
reviewing the record. And again, I thank you for holding a
hearing on this very important subject.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back, and I thank the
gentleman for his comments.
I now ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Virginia, Congressman Scott Rigell, who requested this
oversight hearing, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and
fully participate in our deliberations.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Congressman,
at the appropriate time, I will recognize you to introduce the
Mayor and Supervisor for the Town of Chincoteague.
Thank you--I am sorry. We now need to give you an
opportunity if you would like to make comments.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And would this also
be the right time to introduce and welcome our guests?
Dr. Fleming. It is up to you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT RIGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Rigell. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. And I am just
delighted that my friend and colleague, Dr. Harris, has such
firsthand knowledge of this matter, and that my neighbor is
right here standing with us in this.
And I appreciate you holding this important hearing today,
and for graciously inviting me to be able to be here. It really
is an honor and privilege to represent and serve the 2nd
District of Virginia, which includes the beautiful and vibrant
Town of Chincoteague.
This is a good time to welcome and introduce our guests
here this morning.
Supervisor Wanda Thornton has called Chincoteague home
since 1963. She joined the Chincoteague Town Council in 1990,
and was elected to the Board of Supervisors there in 1996. And
she is a small business owner, which I appreciate. She is the
owner and operator of Pine Grove Campground there in
Chincoteague.
And the good Mayor Jack Tarr is here. He has been the Mayor
of Chincoteague since 1999, and previously served five terms on
the Town Council. He was born and raised on Chincoteague, and
in addition to serving as Mayor, he too is a local small
business owner, has a local contracting business.
And Mr. Chesson--good morning, sir. Welcome to you. He is
also another business owner, been a resident of the Town
since--let's see, 23 years, and he owns and manages the Best
Western Plus there in Chincoteague, directly related, of
course, and benefitting from the tourism that comes in. And I
think your firsthand knowledge of the sense of the business
community there will be particularly enlightening to us this
morning.
I also want to welcome Ms. Payne. Although I don't have
your bio, you are a wonderful part of our community, and I
appreciate you being here very much.
You know, I respect the valuable service provided by the
National Wildlife Refuge system, and it is appropriate that we
set aside our land, some of our land, not only for our benefit
but for the benefit of our children and our grandchildren.
I had the great privilege of growing up hunting on the
Merritt Island National Refuge; my dad worked out at the Cape,
and so many mornings I have good memories of that, duck hunting
with him there. And so I fully appreciate why we have the
National Fish and Wildlife Service and the value that it brings
to all Americans.
Now, that said, though, the direction that we are headed
here, it is so clear to me that this is not a wise policy. This
train has essentially pulled out of the station. And I have
spent quite a bit of time with Lou Hinds and walked through
this on the beach. And it is, in my view, a foregone
conclusion, and that is one of the principal objections that I
have to this plan. It is like it has been predetermined, and
the train has already pulled out on where it is going.
I object to it on really four principal reasons:
Jobs, the adverse impact it will have on jobs, that is
indisputable, in my view;
The cost--we are buying something we do not need with money
we do not have; this is part of what is contributing to our
fiscal crisis in America;
It is a flawed process. I believe it violates the NEPA
process. That is a strong statement to make, but I believe the
evidence reflects that;
And finally, and I would say most importantly, I believe it
thwarts, disregards, the wisdom and the will of the local
people. It is a classic example of an overreaching,
paternalistic Federal Government who, for whatever motivation,
believes it understands and knows what is best for the folks
who have been there generation after generation.
So I oppose it. I have made this very clear. And I know we
are reflecting the wisdom and the will of the local community;
that has been made clear to me by the Mayor, the Supervisors
there, businessmen and women I have spoken with, and also the
Virginia House of Delegates. Lynwood Lewis, one of our
delegates, who represents that wonderful part of the
Commonwealth, made it clear in his letter to me that he
supports what I am doing and he hopes that we are successful.
So I do look forward to hearing the testimony of our
witnesses today. I thank you all for being here. And Mr.
Chairman, thank you again. And Director Weber, thank you for
being here. I look forward to hearing from you.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rigell follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott Rigell, Member of Congress,
Virginia's 2nd Congressional District
Chairman Fleming, members of the committee, thank you for holding
this important oversight hearing today and for graciously inviting me
to participate. It is an honor and privilege to represent the 2nd
District of Virginia which includes the historic town of Chincoteague.
I would like to begin by welcoming and introducing our guests from
Chincoteague.
Supervisor Wanda Thornton has called Chincoteague home since 1963.
She joined the Chincoteague Town Council in 1990 and was elected to the
Accomack County Board of Supervisors in 1996. She is the owner and
operator of Pine Grove Campground in Chincoteague.
Mayor Jack Tarr has been Mayor of the Town of Chincoteague since
1999 and previously served five years on the Town Council. Mayor Tarr
was born and raised on Chincoteague. In addition to serving as Mayor,
he owns and operates a local contracting business.
Mr. Scott Chesson has been a business owner in Chincoteague for 23
years. He owns and manages the Best Western Plus in Chincoteague. His
knowledge of the sense of the local business community will be
particularly relevant to the subject at hand today.
I respect the valuable service provided by the National Wildlife
Refuge system. By setting aside lands for wildlife and providing public
access and education, we preserve America's outdoor heritage for our
own benefit and for that of future generations.
The Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most
visited sites in the refuge system. Visitors come from across the
country to see the wild ponies and enjoy the beach on Assateague
Island.
The town of Chincoteague has a unique relationship with the Refuge.
For more than a generation, the town's economy has become dependent on
beach driven tourism. The beach hosts more than 5,000 people on peak
days. Any change to the refuge management plan which diminishes beach
access will have a detrimental effect on the local economy.
I am very disappointed and troubled by the Fish and Wildlife
Service's approach to the conservation planning process for
Chincoteague for four principle reasons.
1. Jobs
2. Cost
3. The Flawed Process
I have been assured numerous times that the Refuge's intention is
not to replace the beach parking but to supplement it and provide
emergency backup parking for those occasional times when the parking
lot sustains storm damage.
However, it is clear to me that the Refuge is pursuing an agenda to
replace, rather than supplement the parking lot. In their application
for a $3 million dollar grant to purchase an off-site parking location,
refuge officials specifically described the purpose of the funding to
``develop a park-and-ride facility to keep vehicles away from the
vulnerable beachfront.''
4. Complete disregard for the wisdom and will of the local
people.
The town, the county, and the Virginia House of Delegates have all
adopted resolutions disapproving of any effort to expand the boundaries
of the Refuge within the town to establish a transit system. It flies
in the face of common sense that the Refuge would continue to pursue a
plan that has drawn such deep objections.
Moving this project forward ahead of the CCP undermines the
integrity of the public process. The refuge is sending a clear signal
that the public process is nothing more than a pro forma exercise with
a foregone conclusion.
This is a classic example of an over reaching paternalistic federal
government imposing its will without regard for the needs, desires, or
economic well being of the people.
It is incumbent on us to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife service
take no action to undermine the local economy or the people it serves.
Thank you, I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Now we get to the fun part. We will now hear from our
witnesses. Like all witnesses, your written testimony will
appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep
your oral statements to five minutes--and we want to be as
strict as possible because, as I said, we are trying to squeeze
in the witness portion of this before we have to go for our
first series of votes--which is as outlined in the letter that
we sent to you under Committee Rule 4(a).
Our microphones are not automatic, so please press the
button. As you see, you have five minutes to speak. It will be
on the green light for the first four minutes; then it will
turn yellow. When it turns red, please wrap up immediately, and
that way we can make sure that we can get on with the meeting
and get completed at a proper time.
I would now like to welcome today's witnesses. We have
already had some introductions. We have Ms. Wendi Weber, who is
the Northeast Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; The Honorable Jack Tarr, Mayor of the Town of
Chincoteague; The Honorable Wanda Thornton, Member, the
Accomack County Board of Supervisors; Ms. Nancy Payne, owner of
the Clouds Gallery; and Scott Chesson, who will speak on behalf
of the business community in Chincoteague.
Ms. Weber, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. WENDI WEBER, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ms. Weber. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Fleming and
Congressman Rigell and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Wendi
Weber, the Northeast Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and the development of
the Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or the CCP.
My written statement provides details on the public process
and the range of potential management alternatives. In the
interest of time, my remarks today will focus on the issue of
offsite parking.
We are proud of Chincoteague Refuge and the value it
provides to the local community. The Refuge was established in
1943 for the protection and management of migratory birds,
particularly migrating and wintering waterfowl. With its
undeveloped barrier beaches, wetlands, and maritime forest,
Chincoteague Refuge supports a diversity of wildlife, including
endangered species such as loggerhead turtles.
Chincoteague is one of the country's most visited Refuges,
with nearly 1-1/2 million visits each year. This influx of
people is enormously important to the local economy. Through a
memorandum of understanding, the National Park Service manages
public uses along a one-mile portion of the barrier beach at
Toms Cove. The Park Service maintains a visitor station,
parking lots, and a swimming beach.
Like all coastal barrier islands, the sands at Chincoteague
are unstable and are shaped by ocean tides and storms. The
current recreational beach is located in one of the most
dynamic parts of the island. It is under constant threat of
damage from flooding and erosion. Natural forces have
eliminated the manmade dune system, and have repeatedly ravaged
beach parking lots.
On the screen are photographs that show the challenges we
face. The parking lots shown in the first photo, from 1994,
were repeatedly overwhelmed by strong storms in the 1990s.
Eventually, these lots had to be relocated.
The next photo, from 2011, shows the location of the
current shoreline. As you can see, the parking areas from the
1990s are now under water. This photo also shows the location
of the parking lots today. The current lots also have been
repeatedly destroyed and repaired. In the photo, you can see
that they have been recently overwashed by storm surge.
Continuing to repair these parking lots raises important
questions. Is this a responsible use of taxpayer dollars? Is
there a better way to provide recreational beach opportunities
to the public that is fiscally sound and provides longer-term
viability? These are key questions that the Service has posed
to the public and will address in the CCP. The CCP will
describe desired future conditions of the Refuge and provide
long-range guidance and management direction.
There is no proposed CCP yet, but in August of 2011 we
shared four potential alternatives with the public that could
become part of the draft CCP. In December we eliminated one
alternative in response to community input.
There are common elements to the three potential
alternatives. Each includes a recreational beach with adjacent
beach parking. Each includes supplemental offsite parking for
busy days or for emergency backup when storm events wash out
the beach parking. And each includes an alternative
transportation system to service the offsite parking.
We expect to release a draft CCP to the public for comment
this year. Offsite parking is an insurance policy for Refuge
visitors. On busy summer days, the current lots fill up
quickly. Offsite parking would provide a welcomed option for
people who don't want to wait to park or would rather take a
shuttle and get on the beach, and if the beach parking lot is
destroyed by storm surge, as happened before Labor Day last
year, offsite parking will enable the beaches to stay open to
visitors while repairs are made. We are pursuing supplemental
parking to help ensure beach access, which is so critical to
the local economy.
The Service has long sought to acquire land suitable for
offsite parking. Suitable land only recently became available.
Coincidental to the CCP process, the Service applied for a
grant to help purchase the land, and continues to pursue other
funding sources to complete the purchase.
In our continued discussions with the community, I believe
it will become more apparent that the Service and the local
community share the same values, and that we must work together
closely to ensure the Refuge maintains its ability to conserve
wildlife and provide outstanding recreational opportunities in
the face of sea level rise and chronic storm damage.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and
I am happy to address any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weber follows:]
Statement of Wendi Weber, Northeast Regional Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee, I am
Wendi Weber, Northeast Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service). Thank you for the opportunity to testify about one
of the most popular units of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System) - Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, located on
Assateague Island on the coast of Virginia.
My statement below describes the Service's developing comprehensive
conservation plan for the refuge, and how we are approaching future
management given the effects of environmental change to this very
dynamic barrier island ecosystem. Our goal is to manage the refuge in a
way that ensures: (1) its conservation purpose is achieved and
maintained over the long term; (2) the public continues to have
reasonable, appropriate, and compatible access; and (3) we make
responsible decisions about how we utilize taxpayer dollars. In making
our management decisions we also recognize the important role of the
refuge for local communities.
Background
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1943 for
the protection and management of migratory birds, especially migrating
and wintering waterfowl. Wildlife abounds at Chincoteague. Its barrier
beaches, wetlands, and maritime forests provide habitat for more than
320 different species. The refuge is considered a birding hot spot by
the Audubon Society and has been designated a globally important bird
area by the American Bird Conservancy. The refuge supports Delmarva fox
squirrel, piping plover, Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles, and seabeach
amaranth, all of which are protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Chincoteague is one of the most visited national wildlife refuges
in the nation. It draws as many as 1.4 million visitors each year, and
this influx of people is enormously important to the local tourism
economy. The refuge sits adjacent to Assateague Island National
Seashore, managed by the National Parks Service (NPS). To help
accommodate visitors to the refuge, the NPS, through a Memorandum of
Understanding, manages public use along a one mile portion of the
barrier beach at Tom's Cove. The NPS maintains a visitor contact
station, restrooms, bathhouses, showers, pedestrian trails, and a
lifeguard-protected swimming beach.
Assateague Island, like all coastal barrier islands, is composed of
unstable sediments that are vulnerable to storm damage and chronic
erosion from wind and waves. Assateague Island is located at the
interface of land and sea and serves as a first line of defense against
the strong winds, huge waves, and powerful storm surges that accompany
nor'easters and hurricanes. The exposure to wind, wave, and tidal
energy keeps this coastal barrier in a state of constant flux, losing
sand in some places and gaining it in others. The current recreational
beach and facilities of the refuge are located in one of the most
dynamic areas of the island, which places them under constant threat of
damage from flooding and erosion. The effects from environmental change
on national wildlife refuges are not isolated to Chincoteague. The
effects are being realized all along the Atlantic Coastline, including,
for example, at Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge, Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, and Key
Deer National Wildlife Refuge.
Over the years, storms and their accompanying extreme high tides
have repeatedly washed out the recreational beach parking lots at the
refuge. The Service and NPS have relocated the beach parking lots
further to the west as they have been washed out. For example, the
parking lots shown in the attached photo from 1990 (Exhibit A) were
repeatedly overwhelmed by strong storms throughout the 1990s. They have
since been relocated. Exhibit B shows the location of the current
shoreline in relation to the parking lots from the 1990s. As you can
see, those parking areas are now completely underwater.
In the early 1990s, the Service developed a Master Plan for the
refuge that is comparable to the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
being developed today. At that time, as today, the beach parking lots
were a major issue and the Service foresaw the eventual total loss of
the land base where these parking lots are presently located.
Anticipated and predicted loss of beach parking was addressed in the
Master Plan as follows:
[The Service will] continue private vehicle beach access as
long as beach parking areas remain, and allow the National Park
Service to maintain the existing number of parking spaces (961)
as long as the land base directly behind the dunes remains,
realizing that this area will eventually be lost due to the
natural movement of the barrier island. As natural forces
reduce the land base capable of supporting the current parking,
the number of spaces will be reduced accordingly. As spaces are
lost, an alternative means of transportation such as a shuttle
system will need to be used in order to maintain beach use.
During the 20 years since the Master Plan was finalized, annual
storm events and wave action impacted the man-made dune system between
the parking lots and ocean. In the mid 1990s the NPS removed the dune
system, which was restricting the growth of the beach and causing the
swimming beach to become narrower. A rising ocean and coastal storms
have contributed to the loss of parking lot areas and beach. The
parking lots built as replacements have been repeatedly destroyed and
the government has expended considerable funding to rebuild parking
lots only to see them damaged again.
In 2009, the parking lots were totally destroyed by a November
nor'easter and the area repeatedly over-washed that winter, preventing
the NPS from rebuilding the parking lots until the spring. In 2011,
Hurricane Irene totally destroyed the parking lots again, and they will
be rebuilt again this spring. Repairing these parking lots costs
taxpayers between $200,000 and $700,000 per event.
Continuing to invest in rebuilding parking lots in the same
location only to watch them be destroyed and washed away raises a
number of important questions, including: Is this good public policy
and a responsible use of federal funds? Are these investments
sustainable? Is there a better way to provide recreational beach
opportunities to the public that is both fiscally-sound and provides
longer-term viability? These are key questions that the Service has
posed to the public and hopes to address through the current
comprehensive conservation planning process for the refuge. We are
confident that we can provide visitors with recreational beach access
and provide sound public policy in the use of appropriated operational
funding. It is our duty as public servants to be fiscally responsible
in the management of these important conservation and wildlife areas.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
requires the Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
for each unit of the Refuge System by October 9, 2012. Each CCP is
intended to describe desired future conditions of a refuge; provide
long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the
conservation purposes of the refuge, refuge policy requirements, and
the mission of the Refuge System; and support compatible wildlife-
dependent public uses on the refuge.
Beach parking and public access, and how they are affected by sea
level rise and erosion, are some of the most important management
issues being addressed in the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
CCP. In addition, the CCP is being developed through an open and
transparent public process that provides extensive opportunity for
input from the local community and the American public.
In 2010, the Service began a scoping process to gather public input
and identify key issues and concerns to consider at the refuge as part
of the CCP process. Since then, the Service has held nine public
meetings or open houses. We also held four workshops with our state and
municipal government agency partners, as well as other federal
agencies. These included: April 2011, when we jointly developed CCP
vision and goals; June 2011, when we jointly developed alternatives;
and, December 2011, when we met to refine alternatives and resolve
outstanding issues. Three planning update newsletters that requested
public input and comments were published on the refuge's website.
Refuge staff have given dozens of presentations to community groups,
hosted tours, and given interviews to keep the public informed and to
solicit public input throughout the CCP process. The opportunities for
public input to help shape the refuge's CCP have been numerous, and we
are committed to maintaining an open and transparent process as we move
forward.
At the current stage in the process, we have not yet finalized a
draft CCP, nor identified a preferred alternative. However, in August
2011, we released four potential alternatives for public consideration.
These alternatives present different management scenarios that could be
implemented to meet the purposes of the refuge. While it is unusual for
the Service to seek public comment prior to development of a preferred
alternative and draft CCP, we decided to do so because we anticipated
an unusually high level of interest from the public.
In December 2011, the Service met with representatives from the
town of Chincoteague, Accomack County, the National Park Service, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA's Wallops Flight
Facility is located nearby at Wallops Island), the State of Virginia,
the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission, and Volpe
Transportation Center to review the comments received to date regarding
the initial draft alternatives. As a group we revised the alternatives.
We are now considering three alternatives, which are outlined in more
detail in an addendum to this statement. Common parts of all three
draft alternatives are: a recreational beach, parking adjacent to the
beach, off-site parking to supplement adjacent beach parking and to
serve as emergency back-up parking, and an alternative transportation
system.
These three alternatives will be included in the forthcoming draft
CCP and environmental impact statement, which the Service plans to
release for public review and comment this year. The final CCP should
be complete in the summer of 2013.
Offsite Parking and Alternative Transportation
Throughout the ongoing CCP process, and consistent with the
direction given in the refuge's original Master Plan, the Service has
pursued the acquisition of offsite parking at Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge. Offsite parking will ensure continued access to the
refuge for the visiting public in case of short-term parking lot
washout events, as well as potentially long-term flooding from sea
level rise and inundation.
Regardless of the alternative selected in the CCP process, the
Service believes it is prudent to provide offsite parking at the refuge
in case the current beach parking is completely destroyed by an intense
storm. This scenario was realized just before the busy 2011 Labor Day
holiday, when Hurricane Irene swept up the coast of Virginia the week
before one of the busiest tourist days of the year. While Service and
NPS staff worked tirelessly to restore as much parking as possible,
only one-third (350 spaces) of the parking could be restored in time
for the holiday. Thankfully, a local non-profit group scrambled to
create a shuttle system for visitors. Providing parking for these
emergency situations is a priority for the Refuge.
To address the long-term sustainability of parking as well as
emergency needs, in the 1990s the Service attempted to negotiate the
purchase of 200 acres of land owned by the Maddox family in the town of
Chincoteague near the refuge's entrance. While that effort was
unsuccessful, the refuge has maintained its interest in purchasing this
land since that time.
In 2008 and 2009, the Service, with the Assateague Island National
Seashore, the town of Chincoteague, and Accomack County, worked with
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center on an alternative
transportation study at the refuge. The study objectively analyzed
different ways to address transportation-related problems, including
beach access, traffic, and parking. Key planning documents for the town
of Chincoteague and Accomack County specify similar transportation
planning objectives, such as reducing traffic congestion, facilitating
forming and operating alternative transportation, and improving
emergency management and transportation safety.
Independent of, but coincidental to, the ongoing development of the
refuge's CCP, in 2010 the Maddox family approached the Service to
express their interest in selling the property. The Service recognized
the need to move quickly to take advantage of the important
opportunity. Based upon the analysis in the alternative transportation
study, and the direction given in the refuge's 1992 Master Plan, the
Service entered into an agreement to purchase the property in May 2011.
Also in May 2011, the Service applied for a Federal Transportation
Administration Sarbanes Transit in the Parks grant to help fund
acquisition of a portion of the land. The Federal Transportation
Administration announced an award for $1.5 million toward purchase of
the property on January 17, 2012. The Service has applied for
additional grants to help secure the total cost of $7.5 million for the
property.
Although the Service considered acquisition of the Maddox family
property in the 1992 Master Plan, the Service believes additional
review of the acquisition is appropriate under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Acquiring this land was not initially
intended to be part of the CCP process; however, the Service will
evaluate acquisition of offsite parking with the environmental impact
statement for the CCP.
Conclusion
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service remains committed to an open and
transparent public process as we continue to develop the Chincoteague
National Wildlife Refuge CCP. We will continue to have a healthy
dialogue with the public about the future management of the refuge, and
be responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.
As we continue our discussions with the public, we believe it will
become even more apparent that the Service and the local community
share the same values - conservation of the species and habitat at
Chincoteague, safe and sustainable public recreational opportunities,
and a vibrant and healthy local economy. As the refuge and the
community are impacted by sea level rise, beach erosion, and the
effects of continued storm damage, it is imperative that we work
closely together to plan for the continued management of the refuge,
for the benefit of both wildlife and people.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you.
Next we have Mayor Tarr.
You are now recognized, sir, for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK TARR,
MAYOR, TOWN OF CHINCOTEAGUE
Mr. Tarr. My name is Jack Tarr. I am the Mayor of the Town
of Chincoteague. On behalf of our full-time residents and
season visitors, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you about the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and the
planning process that is underway and its impacts on our Town.
I would also like to single out for special thanks
Representative Scott Rigell and his staff, who has been our
champion here in Washington and has stood by us during this
process. Thank you.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a brief
history of how we got to this point. The Chincoteague Bridge
and Beach Authority built the first bridge and roadway system
to the beach in 1962, with the blessing of Congress, to promote
economic development on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. These
valuable public assets were sold to the National Park Service
in 1966 to operate and maintain over four miles of seashore at
the south end of Assateague Island as a public recreational
beach.
The Town of Chincoteague has a 50-year history of support
for the Refuge and the Assateague Island National Seashore. Our
Town has worked hard to build an international reputation for
the Chincoteague wild ponies, and a gateway community that
supports over 1.5 million visitors to the Refuge each year.
The Virginia portion of Assateague Island is a wildlife
refuge inside a national seashore park. This is different than
any other wildlife refuge in the country. But the CCP doesn't
even recognize public beach restoration at all. The CCP should
address the relationship or agreement that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has with the National Park Service. The
question of who is tasked with managing and maintaining the
recreational beach is very important.
I am here today to tell you that I feel we are being
railroaded into less or no beach parking and forced to ride a
trolley system in the future. Before the CCP process, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service began an alternative transportation study
that the community thought was to promote walking trails and
bicycling. I remember the first slide that Refuge Manager Lou
Hinds presented that day, a crowded roadway going to the beach,
and his comment was, ``The American people have become too
dependent on their vehicles.''
The Volpe Transportation Center was the contractor who put
together the alternative transportation plan, and now is the
contractor selected to prepare the CCP and the environmental
impact statement. We know why: It is all about public
transportation. But the grant application award of $1.5 million
for a park-and-ride facility on Chincoteague Island, that we
knew nothing about. How can we trust anything in the CCP
process?
Based on an idea presented by Refuge Manager Lou Hinds
during the last two years, the Town of Chincoteague completed a
questionnaire of our visitors in 2010 that indicated these
changes would have a dramatic negative effect on our economy.
Over 82 percent indicated they would not return if a transit
shuttle replaced convenient beach parking.
In response to the CCP proposals, the Town Council has
resolved:
No expansion of the Refuge or Seashore should occur on
Chincoteague Island.
No transit shuttle system should be proposed that reduces
convenient beach parking at the seashore to less than the
existing spaces.
Alternative B, to relocate the recreation beach, cannot be
supported.
The CCP should include an alternative that allows the
recreational beach to remain at Toms Cove by maintaining or
restoring the land base. The Town presented a 123 Common Sense
Plan to be considered, but was denied.
The CCP should include alternatives that continue the
current exceptional visitor experience for another 15 years.
150 ponies, 360-degree beach experience, 1000-car parking are
examples. I think the CCP should have looked at what we have
been doing for the last 20 years under the old Master Plan.
This is the one we have built our community around. The problem
is, every time we suggest how the plan that provides 1.5
million visitors and voted the number one beach town in 2011
could be improved, we are told, ``It is against our policy.''
Sand fencing to prevent beach erosion: against our policy,
but installed in other areas.
Christmas trees to prevent erosion: against our policy.
Dune maintenance and planting: against our policy, but
allowed on the northern end.
Beach nourishment: against our policy, but is allowed on
the northern end of Assateague and is ongoing.
The $7.5 million that is proposed for a mass transit
parking lot would go a long way to take care of the visitor
facilities we already have.
Mr. Chairman, due to time, I would like to end by saying
that the Town of Chincoteague, we feel, and it saddens me to
say this, is under siege by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Their policy of implementing transit in parks and
purchasing property in our Town limits, both ideas we oppose
because they are completely unnecessary, is one that will kill
jobs, crush investments, and create economic uncertainty in our
town.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarr follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John H. Tarr, Mayor,
Town of Chincoteague, Virginia
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Jack Tarr and I am the Mayor of the Town of
Chincoteague. On behalf of our full time residents and seasonal
visitors, I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR) and the planning process
that is underway and its impacts on our Town.
I also want to single out for special thanks Representative Scott
Rigell and his staff who have been our champion here in Washington and
has stood by us during this process.
If I may Mr. Chairman, please let me give you a brief history for
how we got to this point. . .
The Town of Chincoteague has a 50 year history of support for the
Refuge and the Assateague Island National Seashore. Our Town has worked
hard to build an international reputation for the Chincoteague wild
ponies, and a gateway community that supports over 1.5 million visitors
to the Refuge each year.
The Virginia portion of Assateague Island is a Wildlife Refuge
inside a National Seashore Park. This is different than any other
Wildlife Refuge in the country, but the proposed CCP doesn't even
recognize public beach recreation at all.
The CCP should address the relationship or agreement that the US
Fish and Wildlife Service has with the National Park Service. The
question of who is tasked with managing and maintaining the
recreational beach is very important.
The Chincoteague Bridge and Beach Authority build the first bridge
and roadway system to the Beach in the 1962 with the blessing of
Congress to promote economic development on the Eastern Shore of
Virginia.
These valuable public assets were sold to the National Park Service
in 1966 to operate and maintain over 4 miles of seashore at the south
end of Assateague Island as a public recreational beach.
I am here today to tell you that I feel we are being railroaded
into less or no parking at the Beach, and forced to ride a trolley
system in the future. Before the CCP process, US FWS began an
Alternative Transportation Study that the community thought was to
promote walking trails and bicycling.
I remember the first slide that Refuge Manager Lou Hinds presented
that day. A crowded roadway going to the Beach, and his comment was
``the American People have become too dependent on their vehicles.''
The Volpe Transportation Center was the contractor that put
together the Alternative Transportation Plan, and now is the contractor
selected to prepare the CCP and Environmental Impact Statement. We know
why--it's all about public transportation.
With the grant application award of 1.5 million dollars for a `park
and ride' facility on Chincoteague Island, how can we trust anything in
the CCP process?
Based on the ideas presented by Refuge Manager Lou Hinds during the
last 2 years, the Town of Chincoteague completed a questionnaire of our
visitors in 2010 that indicated these changes would have a dramatic
negative effect on our economy.
Over 82% indicated they would not return if a transit shuttle
replaced convenient beach parking. In response to the CCP proposals,
the Town Council has resolved:
No expansion of the Refuge or Seashore should occur
on Chincoteague Island
No transit shuttle system should be proposed that
reduces convenient beach parking at the Seashore to less than
1,000 existing spaces
Alternative B to relocate the recreational beach
cannot be supported at this time.
The CCP should include an alternative C that allows
the recreational beach to remain at Toms Cove by maintaining or
restoring the `land base' (123 Common Sense Plan)
The CCP should include alternatives that continue the
current exceptional visitor experience for another 15 years
(150 ponies, 360 degree beach experience, 1000 car parking are
examples)
The CCP should include beach nourishment or other
methods to restore the sheltering effect of the barrier island.
You have asked about my opinion of the four proposed alternatives
in the CCP. We have been informed by Refuge staff that this may now be
three choices because they would like to eliminate alternative C.
I think that the CCP should have looked at what has been working
for the past 20 years under the old Master Plan. This is the one we
have built our community around. Unfortunately, alternative A except
that the `status quo' option is never selected. We need to address how
we can improve on that.
The problem is that every time we suggest how the plan that
provides 1.5 million visitors a year and the #1 Beach Town in 2011
could be improved we are told that it is `against our policy'.
1. Sand fencing to prevent beach erosion--`against our policy'
2. Christmas Trees to prevent beach erosion--`against our
policy'
3. Dune maintenance and planting--`against our policy'
4. Beach nourishment--`against our policy'
The 7.5 million dollars that is proposed for a mass transit parking
lot would go a long way to take care of the visitor facilities that we
already have.
Fifty years of experience and public trust should not be abandoned
in a rush to change everything and still meet a 2012 CCP deadline.
Mr. Chairman, the Town of Chincoteague is under siege by the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Their policy of implementing transit in parks and purchasing
property in our town limits--both ideas that we oppose because they are
completely unnecessary--is one that will kill jobs, crush investment
and create economic uncertainty in our Town.
We are here to ask this Committee to exercise its oversight
capabilities and help put a stop to the massive over-reach of the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
______
Dr. Fleming. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Next we have Supervisor Thornton.
You are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WANDA THORNTON,
MEMBER, ACCOMACK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Ms. Thornton. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
good morning. My name is Wanda Thornton, and I have served as a
member of the Accomack County Board of Supervisors since 1996.
My district is the Island District, which also includes
Assateague Island. I am here today to talk to you about jobs
and the apparent willingness of the Obama Administration and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to destroy hundreds of jobs
in our community.
Our island is seven miles long, two miles wide, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service already owns 540 acres within
our Town limits, and plans to purchase an additional 200 acres
of already-developed business property. This business property
generates significant revenue and jobs for our Town and this
County. This past Monday, the Refuge Manager, Lou Hinds told
our elected officials that he would continue to purchase more
land on Chincoteague from any willing sellers. This needs to
stop.
I own a campground on Chincoteague, and I have met visitors
from all over the world who come to Chincoteague to visit our
beautiful island to fish, explore, and go to the beach on
Assateague, which is over a short causeway from Chincoteague.
We know these families, many of whom have visited our region
for decades. We talk to them about their experiences and what
they like and dislike about our beach and our region's
amenities.
I, along with my fellow elected officials and the business
community, have shared what we have learned with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and in particular, Lou Hinds, the Refuge
Manager who is responsible for developing the CCP plan.
I have participated in a previous CCP plan; I participated
in the Refuge Master Plan which is in existence today. I have
to say that the process we are going through now is by far the
most divisive and infuriating process I have encountered in my
more than 20 years of public service.
You will hear from the Government that they have bent over
backwards to hold public meetings, and have invited
stakeholders to meet on many occasions. That is true. But what
is also true is that our concerns have been ignored. We have
been lied to. We have been told that no matter what we say, the
Refuge Manager has 51 percent of the vote so what we say has no
weight. This process underway at the Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge holds the opinions of the local population in
contempt.
People in the Town of Chincoteague are fearful for their
jobs. They are fearful that their investments in local
businesses or restaurants may be wiped out because a local
Refuge Manager wants to shut down the current ocean-accessible
beach and force tourists to ride into the Refuge on a mass
transit system.
You may hear the witness from the Fish and Wildlife Service
discuss a plan to move the recreational beach further to the
north from the current beach. This plan would require the
destruction of more than 10 acres of wetlands and negatively
impact the habitat of the Delmarva fox squirrel, an animal on
the Endangered Species List.
How exactly will the Fish and Wildlife Service get the
approval from other Federal Government agencies to destroy
these wetlands to create a parking lot when these same agencies
protest decisions to impact wetlands throughout our country?
Furthermore, our country is trillions of dollars' worth in
debt, and we do not need to expend the money on something that
is unnecessary.
You can easily see how we become skeptical of the Fish and
Wildlife Service's claim that they are going to move the beach
parking lot farther north, which is their preferred
alternative. Their real plan is to develop a transit parking
system, then claim they cannot build the new beach parking lot
because of environmental and budget concerns. That leaves the
Town right where the Refuge Manager wanted to go all along:
parking outside of the refuge and a permanent loss of beach
parking.
As Mr. Mayor said, we had our visitors complete a survey,
and 80 percent said they will not come back. I have talked to
hundreds of people in Accomack County who have no other beach
to go to, who say they won't even come to our beach if they
have to ride a shuttle system.
The Refuge Manager and the people at the Wildlife Service
know all of this, but they evidently don't care. With this
grant that they just secured, without local knowledge, so we
could not have had a chance to protest it--but they had people
supporting it, so it wasn't something that was unknown. It is
just that the local people didn't know it, the County didn't
know it, or the Town didn't know it.
We would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately
state that they are no longer planning to purchase property in
our Town limits, and abandon their plan to do so.
We would like them to work with us to preserve the current
beach parking, which is possible since they bulldozed down
those dunes. They did not wash down by themselves. They took
bulldozers and bulldozed them down.
In view of the time, I won't finish the other things I have
to say. I will be available to answer questions at any time.
And I thank you so much for allowing us to come and vent our
frustrations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thornton follows:]
Statement of Wanda J. Thornton, Accomack County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee:
Good morning. My name is Wanda Thornton and I serve as a member of
the Accomack County Board of County Supervisors. My district is the
Island District, which includes Chincoteague and Assateague Island in
Virginia.
I am here to day to talk to you about jobs and the apparent
willingness of the Obama Administration and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service to destroy hundreds of businesses and jobs in our community.
Our Island is seven miles long and 2 miles wide and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service owns 540 acres within our town limits and plan to
purchase an additional 200 acres of business property. This business
property generated significant revenue and jobs for our town and the
county. This past Monday, the Refuge Manager, Lou Hines told our
elected officials that he would purchase more land from any willing
sellers in our town. This needs to stop.
I own a campground on Chincoteague and I have met visitors from all
over the world who come to Chincoteague to fish, explore and go to the
beach on Assateague Island, which is over a short causeway from
Chincoteague Island.
We know these families, many of whom have visited our region for
decades. We talk to them about their experiences and what they like and
dislike about our beaches and our region's amenities.
I, along with my fellow elected officials and the business
community, have shared what we've learned with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and in particular, Lou Hinds, the Refuge Manager who is
responsible for developing the CCP.
I have participated in previous CCPs at the Chincoteague Wildlife
Refuge. I have to say that the process we are going through now is by
far the most divisive and infuriating process I have encountered in my
more than twenty years of public service.
You will hear from the government that they have bent over
backwards to hold public meetings and have invited stakeholders to meet
on many occasions. This is true.
But what is also true is that our concerns have been ignored, we
have been lied to, we have been told that no matter what we say the
refuge manager has 51% of the vote, and this process underway at the
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge holds the opinions of the local
population in contempt.
People in the Town of Chincoteague are fearful for their jobs, they
are fearful that their investments in local businesses or restaurants
may be wiped out because a local refuge manager wants to shut down the
current ocean-accessible beach and force tourists to ride into the
refuge on a mass transit shuttle.
You may hear the witness from the Fish and Wildlife Service discuss
plan to move the recreational beach further to the north from the
current beach. This plan would require the destruction of more than ten
acres of wetlands and negatively impacts the habitat of the Delmarva
fox squirrel, an animal on the endangered species list. How exactly
will the Fish and Wildlife Service get the approval from other federal
government agencies to destroy these wetlands to create a parking lot
when these same agencies protest decisions to impact wetlands
throughout our region of the country? Furthermore, our country is
trillions of dollars in debt; where will the Fish and Wildlife Service
get the millions of dollars it will take to implement this
irresponsible plan?
You can easily see how we become skeptical of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's claim that they are going to move the beach parking lot as
they propose in Alternative B, which is their preferred alternative.
Their real plan is to develop a transit parking lot, then claim they
cannot build the new beach parking lot because of environmental and
budget concerns. That leaves the Town right where the Refuge Manager
wanted to go all along: Parking outside of the refuge and the permanent
loss of beach parking.
We have asked our visitors what they think of this idea and more
than 80% of them said they would not come back to Chincoteague if they
were forced to use mass transit to get to the beach. They like being
able to drive to the beach parking lot where they can easily unload
their beach gear and spend the day with their family. Loading a
family's beach gear onto a trolley is not an experience our visitors
will sign up for. There are many other options and they just won't come
to Chincoteague.
The Refuge Manager and the people at the Fish and Wildlife Service
know all of this and they evidently don't care. They just secured a 1.5
million dollar grant from the Sarbanes Transit in Parks program to
purchase property in the Town limits to develop a transit parking lot.
We have made our objections to this purchase crystal clear. Accomack
County opposes moving the parking off the refuge. The Town, State
Tourism Commission, the Office of the Governor of Virginia and the
Virginia House of Delegates have all gone on the record and made it
clear that we oppose the Refuge's plan to purchase property in the Town
limits.
Our country has a trillion dollar per year deficit but the Feds are
going to buy a piece of property against the wishes of the local
population for a service nobody wants to use. It's easy to see why so
many Americans have lost faith in their federal government.
We are here today to ask you to help us stop this reckless agenda:
We would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to
immediately state that they are no longer planning to purchase
property in our Town limits and abandon their plan to do so.
We would like them to work with us to preserve the
current beach parking system which has been in place over the
past five decades. There is nothing wrong with the current
system that can't easily be fixed.
We would like them to stop proposing to thin the pony
herd on the Refuge.
We would like them to develop a cost-sharing plan for
repairing the beach parking lot and stop using the modest
amounts it takes to repair the beach parking lot as a red-
herring for their argument to abandon the beach.
And finally, we would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to become
true partners in the effort to bolster the local economy while
preserving the unique habitat that exists on Assateague Island. I know
it can be done because it has been done for the last fifty years. The
plans contemplated today by the Fish and Wildlife Service are draconian
and unnecessary, will destroy hundreds of jobs and threatens the very
existence of Chincoteague, Virginia.
Thank you again for your time and thoughtful consideration.
______
Dr. Fleming. Well, thank you, Ms. Thornton, and thank you
for observing our time limits. That is helpful so we can move
along this morning.
Next I would like to recognize Ms. Payne for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF NANCY PAYNE, CHINCOTEAGUE, VIRGINIA
Ms. Payne. Hello. My name is Nancy Payne, and I am a
Chincoteague Island resident and business owner. For 23 years,
my husband and I have run an open-in-the-summers art gallery.
Our first property purchased on the island was in 1979, when we
bought a house located on Circle Drive, which we still own.
During our working years, we were both Alexandria-based
teachers, and free to live elsewhere during the summers. We
looked at several places to find a safe summer environment for
our only child, who was 5 years old at the time. Chincoteague
and Assateague Islands filled our requirements.
As she grew older, our family's needs began to change, and
in 1987 we bought a commercially zoned house and property on
Main Street and opened a store to sell work we produce. In
2000, we sold our home in Alexandria, Virginia and moved to
Chincoteague and became residents. In the meantime, our
daughter married, had a baby, and moved to Salisbury, Maryland.
We now have a second home there where we spend about five
months each year.
In addition to running a business, I am a precinct captain
and election official. Ten years ago, another person and I
organized a group of volunteers to give summertime island
history tours to provide additional recreational and
educational opportunities for our tours. The Town's trolleys
are used, and ticket sales money donated to the Town.
Issues facing us at this hearing today center on the
geographic locations of Assateague and Chincoteague. They are
close in miles, but each has very different needs. On
Chincoteague, individuals, business owners, and private
landowners are the stakeholders, and many in the population
rely on money generated from the tourists who sleep, eat, and
shop on our island but go to Assateague for outdoor recreation.
Issues arising around these differences can create awkward
situations.
For the last year and a half, Assateague's 15-year
Comprehensive Conservation Plan has been debated. Refuge
personnel have held advertised-in-advance meetings, and they
were well-attended. Many letters and articles appeared in
newspapers, and an enormous number of private discussions have
taken place.
During public presentations, the full range of alternatives
for consideration were talked about, generating a great deal of
discussion. Audience members asked many questions, which were
thoroughly answered. Graphics and charts explaining the
alternatives served as backdrops for the speaker and a six-
page, well-designed brochure illustrating and explaining the
four alternatives handed out. I attended three of these
meetings.
After careful study, I concluded plan A, the do-nothing
alternative, is not a viable option since existing parking
would inevitably be washed away. Barrier islands, as we all
know, naturally shift and change, and people who use them for
recreation or their source of income must make adjustments to
these predictable changes.
Plan C advocates allowing natural secession and coastal
processes to take place with little intervention, meaning
parking lots would be shut down after storms damage them, and
no shuttle to the beach provided. This plan would not bode well
for Chincoteague. Plan D also did not bode well.
As business owners, we know it is essential for visitors to
get to the beach, even when parking lots are not usable due to
storm damage, making a shuttle system essential. I am so
convinced that plan B was the best solution that last summer I
wrote a petition supporting plan B, and we and Hal and Claire
Lott, also business owners, circulated it among our customers
and friends. Only business owners or residents or property
owners were asked to sign.
It stated: ``Petition of Support to the Assateague Refuge
removing 961 parking spaces to north on the island for purchase
of the Maddox family campground. Signers of the petition
support the plan by the Refuge to move and maintain the 961
parking spaces to a more sheltered and secured Assateague
location. They also endorse this plan to purchase the off-
island Maddox family campground for the following reasons: to
be available as an alternative in case the beach parking lots
are lost due to summer storm or hurricane, to provide the
capability of emergency parking, and for supplement parking
with a shuttle service.''
In total, Claire and I collected 65 signatures that were
sent in. And someone who also very much agrees with me on this
particular issue, too, is--this appeared in the Beacon on the
paper for the 14th of July of 2011--``Beach Access and
Preservation Are Not Mutually Exclusive Goals.
``I want to be very clear that I have no issue with the
Maddox family selling their land. Furthermore, I do not take
issue with the idea of having a backup parking site for
temporary parking in the event that a storm washes out the
current parking lot. I do not dispute the possibility that such
a storm could occur or that an offsite backup option to help
mitigate the economic damage the Town would suffer for however
long it may take to rebuild the parking lot.''
The writer goes on to say in another paragraph, ``However,
I will not support any plan that relies on a transit system as
the primary means accessing the beach or that decreases the
number of parking spaces within the walking distance of the
beach.''
The writer of this is Representative Scott Rigell.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Payne follows:]
Statement of Nancy Payne, Owner of Clouds Gallery,
Chincoteague Island, Virginia
My name is Nancy Payne. I'm a Chincoteague Island resident and
business owner. For 23 years my husband, Randolph, and I have run an
open-in-the-summers art gallery at the corner of Maddox and Main
Streets.
Our first property purchase on the Island was in 1979 when we
bought a house located on Circle Drive and which we still own. During
this time, our working years, we were both Alexandria-based teachers
and free to live elsewhere during the summers. We looked at several
places to find a safe summer environment for our only child who was 5
years old at the time. Chincoteague and Assateague Islands filled all
these requirements. She rode her bike, swam in the ocean, had plenty of
fresh air and room to grow. As she grew older our family's needs began
to change and in 1987 we bought the commercially zoned house and
property at 4296 Main Street, opened an art gallery to sell work we
produce. In the year 2000 we sold our home in Alexandria, Virginia and
moved to Chincoteague and became residents. In the meantime our
daughter married, had a baby and moved to Salisbury, Maryland. We now
have a second home there where we spend about five winter months each
year.
In addition to running a business, I'm a Precinct Captain and
Election Official. Ten years ago another person and I organized a group
of about 12 volunteers to give summertime Island history tours four
times per week to provide additional recreational and educational
opportunities for our tourists. The Town's trolleys are used and ticket
sales money donated to the Town.
Issues facing us at this hearing today center on the geographic
locations of Assateague and Chincoteague Islands. They are close in
miles but each has very different needs, objectives and goals. One's
primary purpose as a National Refuge is to protect the wildlife and
fragile land mass that is literally at the edge of the eastern shore.
On Chincoteague individuals, business owners and private landowners are
the stakeholders and many in the population rely on money generated
from the tourist who sleep, eat and shop on our island but go to
Assateague for outdoor recreation. Issues arising around these
differences can create awkward situations.
For the last year and a half, Assateague's 15 year Comprehensive
Conservation Plan has been debated. Refuge personnel have held
advertised-in-advance meetings that were well attended. Many letters
and articles appeared in newspapers and an enormous number of private
discussions have taken place. During public presentations the full
range of alternatives for consideration were talked about generating a
great deal of discussion. Audience members asked many questions which
were thoroughly answered; graphics and charts explaining the
alternatives served as backdrops for the speaker and a six page, well-
designed brochure illustrating and explaining the four Alternatives
handed out. (I attended three of these meetings.)
After careful listening, studying and thinking about the plans I
concluded: Plan A: The `do nothing' alternative is not a viable option
since existing parking would inevitably be washed away. It is essential
to make plans now and not allow this to happen. Barrier islands, as we
all know, naturally shift and change and people who use them for
recreation or their source of income must make adjustments to these
easily predictable changes. Plan C: Advocates allowing natural
succession and coastal processes to take place with little intervention
allowing natural disturbances to occur meaning parking lots would be
shut down after storms damaged them and no shuttle to the beach
provided causing visitors to leave since they would not be able to get
to the beach via their own vehicles. This plan would not bode well for
Chincoteague's tourism economic base. Plan D: Staffing and funding
would be directed towards maximizing habitat and wildlife management
with the result being public use activities and access may be reduced.
Again, not good for Chincoteague's economic well being.
As business owners we know it's essential for visitors to get to
the beach even when parking lots are not usable due to storm damage
making a shuttle system essential. We were so convinced that Plan B was
the best solution that last summer I wrote a petition supporting Plan B
and we along with Hal and Claire Lott, also business owners, circulated
it among our customers and friends. Only business owners or residents
or property owners were asked to sign. It stated: ``PETITION OF SUPPORT
TO THE ASSATEAGUE REFUGE: FOR MOVING 961 PARKING SPACES TO NORTH ON
ISLAND, FOR PURCHASE OF MADDOX FAMILY CAMPGROUND. Signers of this
petition support the plan by the Refuge to move and maintain 961
parking spaces to a more sheltered and secure Assateague location. They
also endorse their plan to purchase the off-Assateague Island Maddox
Family Campground for the following reasons: to be available as an
alternative in case the beach parking lots are lost due to a summer
storm or hurricane, to provide the capability of emergency parking and
for supplemental parking with a shuttle service to the beach area.''
Claire passed along her signed copies to me and I sent 57
signatures to Lou Hinds. A few other people asked to have petitions but
were to send them directly to the Refuge. My conservative guess is that
at least 65 signatures were generated. (A blank copy is provided for
the record.)
During the last meeting I attended Lou Hinds went into more detail
about the Maddox Campground which, if bought, would continue to be used
for camping but run by the Refuge with only two week permits issued
creating a tourist turn over that would potentially produce more
Chincoteague business dollars. In addition, personally, I strongly
believe that all levels of economic income should be able to afford a
beach experience and having a safe, clean camping facility that is very
close to the beach area would add another dimension to Chincoteague's
clientele. I can envision youth groups, from churches, Boy and Girl
Scouts, schools on field trips, all camping there and using a shuttle
to go back and forth to the beach.
Assateague's 37 miles long coast line provides a vast amount of
space for people and at least one of these meeting Mr. Hinds also make
it clear that there is additional room on the beach for more people
than can be transported there by 961 vehicles. Again making a strong
case for a shuttle for those who either don't want to be bothered
parking on the beach or for those who can't get there because the 961
spaces are filled.
As to the fear expressed by some--that the Refuge would bait-and-
switch by building a parking lot on the Maddox Campground, start a
shuttle system for emergency use and then get rid of all parking on
Assateague--that seems to me to be over reaching in use of `suspicion.'
The Refuge is not tucked away in some remote area where such a devious
trick could possibly be successful. It is known around the world, has
been visited by millions of people and is very near major metropolitan
cities, which are the home bases for a massive number of people. If the
Fish and Wildlife Service were to go back on its word by forbidding
parking on Assateague and use only shuttle buses going from the Maddox
Family Campground an extremely large number of people would have a
collective fit and an ``Occupy Assateague' movement would take place.
But I don't expect this to happen. I feel strongly that the Refuge has
been honest, open and considerate by not only focusing on their needs
but also those of their neighbors on Chincoteague. They are fully aware
of their position in this fragile alliance and the economic
ramifications their actions could cause to Chincoteague's well-being
and economic bottom line.
Other people and I agree, on this issue. I quote one of them from a
14 July 2011 article printed in the local BEACON newspaper with the
title reading: BEACH ACCESS, PRESERVATION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
GOALS. ``I want to be very clear that I have no issue with the Maddox
family selling their land. Furthermore, I do not take issue with the
idea of having a backup parking site for temporary parking in the event
that a storm washes out the current parking lot. I do not dispute the
possibility that such a storm could occur or that an off-site, backup
option could help mitigate the economic damage the town would suffer
for however long it may take to rebuild the parking lot.'' The writer
goes on to say in another paragraph. ``However, I will not support any
plan that relies on a transit system as the primary means accessing the
beach or that decreases the number of parking spaces within walking
distance of the beach.''
The writer and the person with whom I agree is Representative Scott
Rigell who has apparently requested this meeting. Had I known his views
at the time I would have asked him to sign our petition! (Copy
submitted for the record.)
The natural assets of Assateague are irreplaceable and I strongly
respect the current policy that the recreational beach will not be
replenished and dune habitat will not be actively maintained. To do so
would simply be a waste of money since this would have to be constantly
redone after storms did their damage. Better to put money in a real
asset such as the entire Maddox Family Campground which has a
consistent land mass and could be used in many different ways.
The Town and the Refuge mean a great deal to our family and to us.
It is extremely rewarding to see our 9-year-old granddaughter having
the same basic growing up experiences her mother had on these two very
special Islands. For the mental and economic well being of all
concerned I trust a more agreeable, thoughtful, respectful atmosphere
will be nourished between the leaders of these two national treasures,
their differences resolved and a pleasant working agreement
established.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Payne.
And now Mr. Chesson, you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CHESSON, OWNER,
BEST WESTERN PLUS CHINCOTEAGUE ISLAND
Mr. Chesson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I am here to represent the business community on
Chincoteague Island and share my views on how the reduction or
elimination of beach parking on Assateague Island will affect
our business and residents of Chincoteague Island.
I have been active in our community and a business owner
and employer for 23 years. Our island's employers and employees
and residents are angry and scared. We are angry because our
Federal Government seems to be on a course to turn Chincoteague
Island into a ghost town. We are angry because it seems that it
seems that the current management of Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge has been less than honest and forthcoming with
us during the ongoing CCP.
There have been opportunities for our voices to be heard,
but it would appear our words have fallen on deaf ears. This is
demonstrated by the fact that our Town's leaders were unaware
that the Fish and Wildlife had applied for a grant to purchase
part of a campground to serve as a staging area for busing
visitors to Assateague Beach. The grant award of $1.5 million
came as a shock to us all since we had the assurance that the
Fish and Wildlife Service had no intentions of reducing or
eliminating parking at the beach.
Unfortunately, the people of Chincoteague Island no longer
view the Fish and Wildlife as our partner. They have become an
impediment and a threat to our livelihood. We are scared
because a future with limited access to the beach on Assateague
Island via a bus service will destroy jobs, diminish property
values, and close the doors of family owned and operated
businesses.
Our townspeople have mortgages on their homes, business
loans, children to feed and educate. It seems unconscionable
that the Fish and Wildlife Service would even consider reducing
or eliminating parking on Assateague Beach, given the number of
lives it will destroy.
A survey by the Town of Chincoteague conducted with our
island's visitors during the 2010 tourist season asked, ``Do
you come to Chincoteague primarily to go to the beach?''
Eighty-two percent answered ``Yes.'' Another question was, ``If
Assateague Beach parking was replaced by a trolley/bus system,
do you believe it would have a negative impact on local
business or the length of your vacation in Chincoteague?'' A
full 90.7 percent answered yes.
Our economy was transformed when the bridge to Assateague
was built in the 1950s. Once a small seaside fishing village,
our island has turned into a tourist destination and a revenue-
generator for Accomack County and the State of Virginia. Our
Town now boasts a total of 962 hotel rooms, 1,143 campsites,
and 670 rental homes and cottages. Most if not all of these
accommodations have an occupancy rate of 90-plus percent during
the summer beach season.
AOL Travel named our island the number one beach town in
the entire country in 2011. The beach at the Assateague
National Seashore has established our island as a premier
vacation destination for millions of people all over our
country. A reduction or elimination of parking at the beach
will change all that. Jobs will be lost, businesses will be
closed, and real estate investments on the island will be worth
next to nothing.
In recent days, after it was disclosed that Fish and
Wildlife Service received $1.5 million to purchase part of the
Maddox campground, our local Chamber of Commerce began
receiving calls from concerned patrons of Chincoteague asking
if the beach was going to be open this summer. One lady stated
she would immediately put her house on the market because,
``Once they get rid of parking at the beach, my home will not
be worth anything.'' The negative impact of offsite parking has
begun, and it is real.
My daughter Hillary and I assisted the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to procure the funding necessary to build the
Herbert H. Bateman Educational and Administrative Center about
10 years ago. The building was named for former Congressman
Herb Bateman from Virginia, who was a tremendous supporter of
the Refuge and Town.
The Center is a state-of-the-art facility that provides the
Fish and Wildlife Service the opportunity to educate the
approximately 1.5 million visitors to Assateague Island each
year. With the help from the citizens of Chincoteague, the Fish
and Wildlife Service was awarded a grant of $12 million, and
the Herb Bateman Center became a reality. The reduction or
elimination of parking on Assateague and the resulting
diminished visitation is squandering an effort begun a few
short years ago to educate the general public about the
sensitive nature of our environment.
The Committee asked me to voice my opinion on alternatives
proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. I don't support any
of them, and here is why: If it is not broke, don't fix it.
From a businessman's standpoint, the cost associated with
repairing the beach parking in the next 15 to 20 years is just
a cost of doing business for the National Park Service.
Furthermore, the cost is minuscule and is covered by the
fees charged to cars entering the Refuge. The cost of
maintaining the beach parking is less than the Fish and
Wildlife Service would spend purchasing land for a transit
staging area, and associated and ongoing costs of staffing and
maintaining a bus system.
In closing, I would like to share with you the response I
received when I asked the owners and operators of several
larger hotels that operate on our island of Chincoteague. I
asked, ``How would the reduction or elimination of parking at
the beach on Assateague affect your business?''
Ms. Jane Wolfe, owner and operator of the Refuge Inn: ``A
reduction of 20 percent of our customers would force us to
close; 35 jobs would be lost.''
Reggie Stubbs, owner of the Island Resort: ``Eliminating or
reducing parking would devastate my business. Buses would be an
inconvenience to people they wouldn't experience at other
places. It wouldn't work. It would put me out of business.''
Jeanie Rose, the manager of Comfort Suites: ``People have
said they would stop coming. We are the only beach on the
Eastern Shore. All of our employees are local, and I would have
to eliminate jobs according to the loss of business.''
Tom Derrickson, owner and manager of Hampton Inn: ``It
would be devastating to our island, County, and the whole
Eastern Shore. People don't realize how it would affect them.
Numerous jobs would be lost.''
[Time expired.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chesson follows:]
Statement of S. Scott Chesson, Owner/Manager,
Best Western Plus Chincoteague Island, Chincoteague, Virginia
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee:
I am here to represent the business community on Chincoteague
Island and share my views on how the reduction or the elimination of
beach parking on Assateague Island will affect businesses and the
residents of Chincoteague Island.
I have been active in our community and a business owner and
employer on our Island for 23 years and I am well connected with the
business community.
Our Island's employers, employees and residents are angry and
scared.
We are angry because our Federal Government seems be on a course to
turn Chincoteague Island into a ghost town. We are angry because it
seems that the current management of the Chincoteague National Wildlife
Refuge has been less than honest and forthcoming with us during the
ongoing CCP. There have been opportunities for our voice to be heard
but it would appear our words have fallen on deaf ears.
This is demonstrated by the fact that our Town's leaders were
unaware the Fish and Wildlife Service had applied for a grant to
purchase part of a campground to serve as a staging area for bussing
visitors to the Assateague beach. The grant award of 1.5 million
dollars came as a shock to us all since we had the assurance that the
FWS had no intentions of reducing or eliminating parking at the beach.
Unfortunately, the business people of Chincoteague Island no longer
view the Fish and Wildlife as our partner--they have become an
impediment and a threat to our livelihood.
We are scared because a future with limited access to the beach on
Assateague Island via a bus service will destroy jobs, diminish
property values and close the doors of family owned and operated
businesses.
Our town's people have mortgages on their homes, business loans and
children to feed and educate. It seems unconscionable that the FWS
would even consider reducing or eliminating parking on Assateague beach
given the number of lives it will destroy.
A survey by the Town of Chincoteague conducted with our Island
visitors during the 2010 tourist season asked: Do you come to
Chincoteague primarily to go to Assateague Beach? 82% answered ``yes.''
Another question was: If Assateague Beach parking was replaced by a
trolley/bus system, do you believe it would have a negative impact on
local business or the length of your vacation in Chincoteague? 90.7%
answered ``yes.
Our economy was transformed when the bridge to Assateague form
Chincoteague was built in the 1950s.
Once a small seaside fishing village, our Island has turned into a
tourist destination and a revenue generator for Accomack County and the
State of Virginia. Our Town now boasts a total of 962 Hotel rooms, 1143
camp sites and 670 rental homes and cottages. Most, if not all of these
accommodations have an occupancy rate of 90+ % during the summer beach
season.
AOL Travel named our Island the #1 Beach Town in the entire country
in 2011. The beach at the Assateague National Seashore has established
our Island as a premier vacation destination for millions of people all
over our country. A reduction or elimination of parking at the beach
will change all that.
Jobs will be lost, businesses will close and real-estate
investments on the Island of Chincoteague will be worth next to
nothing. In recent days, after it was disclosed that the Fish and
Wildlife Service received 1.5 million dollars to purchase part of the
Maddox Campground, our local Chamber of Commerce began receiving calls
from concerned patrons of Chincoteague asking if the beach was going to
be open this coming summer. One lady stated she would immediately put
her house on the market because ``once they get rid of parking at the
beach, my home will not be worth anything.'' The negative impact of
off-site parking has begun and it is real.
My daughter Hillary and I assisted the US Fish and Wildlife Service
to procure the funding necessary to build the Herbert H. Bateman
Educational and Administrative Center about 10 years ago. The building
was named for former Congressman Herb Bateman from Virginia who was a
tremendous supporter of the Refuge and the Town.
The Center is a state of the art facility that provides the Fish
and Wildlife Service the opportunity to educate the approximate 1.5
million visitors to Assateague Island each year. With the help from the
citizens of Chincoteague, the FWS was awarded a grant of 12 million
dollars and the Herbert H. Bateman Educational and Administrative
Center became a reality.
The reduction or elimination of beach parking on Assateague and the
resulting diminished visitation, is squandering an effort, begun a few
short years ago, to educate the general public about the sensitive
nature of our environment.
The Committee asked me my opinion of the Alternatives proposed by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. I don't support any of them and here is
why: if it's not broke don't fix it! From a business man's standpoint,
the cost associated with repairing the beach parking in the next 15--20
years is just a cost of doing business for the National Park Service.
Furthermore, the cost is miniscule and is covered by the fees charged
to cars entering the Refuge. The cost of maintaining the beach parking
is less than the FWS would spend purchasing land for a transit staging
area, and the associated and ongoing cost of staffing and maintaining a
bus system.
Regarding off-beach parking, how will 2 or 3,000 people take refuge
when an unexpected storm blows up in the middle of the afternoon and
they need to take shelter? What if mom forgets the sunscreen for her
little ones or her child gets sick the needs to return to their hotel
room. Putting ones children in jeopardy like that is not an option.
Common sense dictates that our guests will choose other destinations
for their beach experience if their mobility is put in jeopardy.
Here is my alternative. Since we currently experience 5--10 parking
lot closures each summer season because the parking lots are full,
let's put an additional 200 parking spots there so this doesn't happen
again. From a business man's standpoint, if you don't give people what
they want or expect, they will find it somewhere else. Let's also give
our guests a couple of new concession stands where they can purchase
food and drinks. The profits from this operation can be used to offset
the cost of repairing the parking lots if there is ever storm damage or
used to finance some new beach replenishment efforts.
The National Park Service manages the recreational beach area. If
the FWS and the NPS work with the Town we can get all of this worked
out and it won't cost the federal government anything. Where there is a
will there is a way.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's so called Alternative B plan to
move the current beach is a classic bait and switch. They'll tell us
they're going to move the beach but it just won't happen because of
environmental concerns and a lack of federal funds. Then we'll be stuck
with no beach parking and a transit system people just won't use. And
the architect of this effort, Refuge Manager Lou Hinds, will be long
gone.
In closing, please let me share the response I received when I
asked the owners and operators of several larger hotels that operate on
our Island of Chincoteague: how would the reduction or elimination of
parking at the beach on Assateague affect your business?
Ms. Jane Wolfe--Owner and Operator of the Refuge Inn ``a reduction of
20% of our customers would force us to close. 35 jobs would be
lost!''
Reggie Stubbs--Owner of the Island Resort ``Eliminating or reducing
parking would devastate my business. Busses would be an
inconvenience to people that they wouldn't experience at other
places. It wouldn't work. It would put me out of business.''
Jeanie Rose--Manager of Comfort Suites ``People have said they would
stop coming. We are the only beach on the Eastern Shore. All of
our employees are locals and I would have to eliminate jobs
according to the loss of business.''
Tom Derrickson--Owner and Manager of the Hampton Inn ``It would be
devastating to our Island, County and the whole Eastern Shore.
People don't realize how it would affect them. Numerous jobs
would be lost.
Many believe--and their actions make it hard not to believe--that
the ultimate goal of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to eliminate any
human and pony presence on Assateague Island and to gain control of
Assateague Channel as well. . .as demonstrated by the recent grant
award. We are all wondering where all this will lead and why our way of
life is under attack from our own government.
Please do not allow Chincoteague Island to become a ghost town!
Please exercise your responsibilities as an oversight committee and
help the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia.
______
Dr. Fleming. I am sorry. You are a minute over, and I
applaud your enthusiasm, but we do have to move along. And
fortunately, they have not called votes yet.
So we will go ahead and at this point begin Member
questions to our witnesses. To allow all Members to participate
and to ensure we can hear from all the witnesses today, Members
are limited to five minutes for their questions. However, if
Members have additional questions, we can have more than one
round of questioning. And I now recognize myself for five
minutes.
Ms. Weber, my question, my first question, has to do with
process. Now, I understand that the CCP, we now have three
alternative plans. Is that correct?
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fleming. Explain to me the fact that at least according
to documents we have--which, by the way, are stamped
``Confidential''; I can understand why they are stamped that
way--why do we already have an executed purchase, for $7.5
million, additional land? If the plan has not been determined,
why have we already committed to a land purchase?
Ms. Weber. Thank you, sir. Well, we are early in the
process of developing the CCP in the NEPA process. This is
still very early, and details are still being worked out,
especially based on public comment.
But with that being said, as stated earlier, the 1992
Master Plan did talk about the erosion and the flooding of the
Southern area where the recreational beach----
Dr. Fleming. Yes. Let's not go back to the 1990s. Just very
specifically, why buy this land for $7.5 million, when you
haven't decided what the plan is going to be? Just very
directly?
Ms. Weber. So we have not purchased the $7.5 million
campground. We have entered into----
Dr. Fleming. This is not a----
Ms. Weber [continuing]. Contract that would allow us to do
so.
Dr. Fleming. Excuse me. I am sorry. This is not an executed
purchase that we have?
Ms. Weber. No, sir. We have not purchased that land. We
have not spent any dollars on that land. We are actually----
Dr. Fleming. Well, I understand you haven't spent the
money. But it is a signed contract, so----
Ms. Weber. It allows us the option to do so. But we will
not do that until the entire CCP process----
Dr. Fleming. So you are saying this is simply an option?
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fleming. You can back out of this contract at any
point?
Ms. Weber. That is correct, sir.
Dr. Fleming. That is not our understanding. Our
understanding is that this is a committed contract that you
can't back out of.
Ms. Weber. It is an option to buy, but it is not--we have
an option not to buy also.
Dr. Fleming. There is nothing in here about an option. We
will be happy to share that with you offline. It says,
``Statement of Just Compensation.'' It is signed, executed,
Joseph McCauley, Chief, Division of Realty--I guess he is in
Washington--representing the Service. A number of signatures by
both parties.
So I would submit to you--I was very moved--your argument
to move this parking lot and the plans that you have, I was
very moved by the fact that you wanted to save taxpayer money.
But I find it very difficult that we would pay $7.5 million of
taxpayer money for land, buying a campground, when we don't
even know if we are going to use it. So that is something that
we are definitely going to want to pursue.
Now, the Refuge Manager for Chincoteague was recently
quoted that, ``Beach access is critical to maintain the
economic vitality of the Town of Chincoteague and the
surrounding counties.'' What is your definition of access, and
does it include a shuttle service from a remote parking lot
three miles from the existing beach?
Ms. Weber. All three alternatives, as drafted now, all have
beachside parking. And the supplemental parking would just be
there for days of overflow as well as emergency needs.
Dr. Fleming. All right. What is the size of the parking
lots in the alternatives?
Ms. Weber. 961, I believe, are deliberated in the first
two, and 480----
Dr. Fleming. That is the existing, but I am talking about
the alternatives.
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fleming. You say there is beachside parking. How many
cars would be able to park there?
Ms. Weber. 961 parking spaces are available.
Dr. Fleming. In the new--in the alternatives?
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir, in the first and second. And I believe
the third offers 480.
Dr. Fleming. 480 on one of the alternatives----
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fleming [continuing]. And the same exact number for the
other alternatives?
Ms. Weber. That is my understanding.
Dr. Fleming. Now, you mentioned the cost to taxpayers, and
again, I appreciate that, being a conservative. However, we are
talking about the fact that these parking lots, while they do
require some measure of rebuilding at times, remodeling, and
what have you, but I understand parking cost is 8 bucks an
automobile. That really adds up fast; that is a lot of money.
So obviously, if you move that and it is less accessible, there
would be fewer cars. So if you have less revenue, then
obviously savings may not count for much.
Has there been a full study that compares the long-term
economic impact of the existing parking situation versus the
alternatives? Do we have a head-to-head comparison between the
three?
Ms. Weber. Not yet, sir, but that is part of the process.
An economic analysis will be conducted as part of the CCP
process.
Dr. Fleming. And what about the economic impact to the
community itself?
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir. I believe all of that is included in
the analysis conducted.
Dr. Fleming. But it has not been completed?
Ms. Weber. No, sir.
Dr. Fleming. So just to summarize, as I am running out of
time, we have a land purchase--and again, while we are offline,
we are going to look at this again; but everything about this
contract, and I have dealt with a lot of contracts over a lot
of years, real estate--this to me is completely committed,
without an escape clause. This is not a proposed contract.
But we want to verify that because, if indeed this is a
committed contract, this is a violation of NEPA laws. And that
is a very serious violation. So, we will definitely pursue
that; and we definitely would strongly suggest that we not come
to any conclusion here until all of these studies, including
the impact studies, have been completed.
And with that, I will yield back my time, and I will now
recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii for five minutes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, first of all, I would like to request unanimous
consent to enter into the record a letter from the Maddox
family on this matter.
Dr. Fleming. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The letter submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Weber, along the same lines, there is a CCP that is in
existence right now, isn't there? This is the 1992 Master Plan.
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am. It is a management plan for the
Refuge.
Ms. Hanabusa. And that is what is governing the decisions
that are being made now?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, what you are in the process of doing is
modifying that Master Plan, as I understand.
Ms. Weber. That is correct.
Ms. Hanabusa. And the process that you are using--I think
part of your testimony said that you are actually going out to
the stakeholders first versus how you would normally do this.
Can you explain to me the difference in how you are approaching
this particular CCP, and why?
Ms. Weber. Sure. The public's input and opinion is very
important to us. It is very important that we have the
sustained support of the local community as well as visitors
from afar, that we continue to have exceptional visitor
experiences.
So what we have done is we are doing extensive
communication with the public and getting their input while we
actually pull together and develop these alternatives. And then
once these alternatives are drafted and further detailed, we
allow a further 60-day comment period in addition. And so we
are doing all this upfront additional communication with our
public to help draft alternatives, as well as allow additional
comment once they are drafted.
Ms. Hanabusa. As you can imagine, in Hawaii we deal a lot
with these issues, and with Fish and Wildlife. And just so that
they know, I have some issues with you, too, in Hawaii.
So let me just be clear about one thing, and that is that
it is my understanding that as soon as you get to some kind of
plan that you want adopted, don't you just publish that, and
then it is a formal publication, and people are given the
opportunity to make the responses until--and then the Director
will actually step forward and make the adoption? Am I correct?
That is your process?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. So you are not even at the point where it has
been published.
Ms. Weber. Correct.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, I also understand from your testimony
that you have three alternatives, and there were actually more
than three, and you have actually eliminated some of them. And
you are down to three, and you are still discussing the three.
Is that correct?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am. Based on comments that we received,
we eliminated one.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, of the three that you have, each one of
those contains in it a provision of keeping part of the parking
at the beach and then part offsite. Am I correct?
Ms. Weber. That is correct.
Ms. Hanabusa. So do you know what the numbers are in each
of your--just for reference, 1, 2, and 3, what the numbers are
that are being kept at the beach and how many stalls are being
placed offsite?
Ms. Weber. I believe the first alternative right now is
deliberating 961 status quo, the second is 961, and the third
is 480, with offsite parking, I believe, possibly accommodating
200 vehicles. And we understand in the last five years there
has been anywhere between 5 and 20 days of overflow parking,
and that is about 30,000 to 120,000 visitors that either had to
wait in their cars or decided not to stay. So that is why we
believe the supplemental parking would be helpful in ensuring
consistent and constant visitation out into the future.
Ms. Hanabusa. So bear with me because I don't really know
anything about how it looks or what--I mean, I saw the map, but
that is about it.
So when you say 961 parking stalls on plans 1 and 2, isn't
it true that you have 961 now?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. So you are at status quo on plans 1 and 2?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, is there an issue as to where it is
located? Is that the problem with plan 1 and 2 that has the
numbers near the beach?
Ms. Weber. Well, I haven't had direct conversation. I do
believe some of the concern was that the beaches would be too
far--the parking would be far away from the beach. And we are
talking with the Park Service and our public regularly to
ensure that they are as close as possible, and we believe the
second alternative would be as proximal as where status quo is
if we were to move the beach to the north.
Ms. Hanabusa. So you are going to have to move the beach to
nearer the parking stalls so that they will be--what, the
proximity would be identical to where it is now?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. My time is running out, and I am hoping that
we will have a second round. And in the meantime, if we go to
votes, I would like for you to consider--the question I also do
have is--and I would like for you to answer in the next round--
is the relationship between Fish and Wildlife and the National
Park Service, and who has jurisdiction over what.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would yield back. I am out of time.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Wittman from Virginia for five minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank all the members of the panel for
joining us today. I spent many years working there on the
Eastern Shore with the Division of Shellfish Sanitation, so you
all are very, very close to my heart. We appreciate your
service and the things that you are doing for a great community
there in Chincoteague.
Mayor Tarr, let me ask you this. I understand that during
the summer of 2010, there was a survey done of about 13,000
visitors to your area. Can you tell me what the results are of
that study, what you found and what impact it may have, or what
you think it should have, on this CCP?
Mr. Tarr. Yes. I think the major impact that we saw was
that 82 percent of those people polled during the survey would
not come back to Chincoteague, would not return at all to go to
the beach, if they had to ride a shuttle system. And to that,
that is just an economic downfall for us.
Mr. Wittman. Based on your assessment of the economic
impacts that this CCP may have on the Town of Chincoteague, do
you believe that those economic impacts should be incorporated
in whatever comes out of this plan?
And second, do you believe that the Park Service is
providing you the opportunity not only to provide that feedback
in an open forum, but also do you believe that that feedback
that you are giving them of those impacts are being considered
or would end up being incorporated into their plan?
Mr. Tarr. Not at the present time, no, sir.
Mr. Wittman. All right. Ms. Thornton, I want to get your
perspective from the County's perspective, and obviously, you
representing that area on the Board of Supervisors, what are
your thoughts about the responsiveness in how the National Park
Service considers the concerns of the Town, the concerns of the
County, especially at a time where we know there are some
significant challenges to economies, especially rural economies
in Virginia, where we know it is a natural resource-based
economy?
We know how important the economics of tourism and of our
natural resources are on the area. Can you give me your
perspective from the County about how you believe the National
Park Service is incorporating your thoughts and concerns as
they develop this plan?
Ms. Thornton. I don't think they are listening to us. The
County has sent a resolution saying that we oppose purchasing
any land within the Town of Chincoteague, and we oppose this
grant. And the reason why is because of the economic impact on
Accomack County.
As you well know, it is a very depressed area. We need all
the jobs we can get, and we need to keep the revenue that is
being generated there. And tourism is a big engine, like $145
million from Accomack County. That is everything that is spent.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you.
Ms. Payne, can you give me your perspective on what you
believe the impacts are, and how the National Park Service may
or may not be incorporating them into their planning process?
Ms. Payne. Again, I think that the impact would be a very
positive impact to have a shuttle used from the Maddox
campground going to the beach in times of dire need, as we had
when Irene hit, the Hurricane Irene, and they had to shut down
the beach. If you shut down the beach on Chincoteague, you
might as well shut down the businesses because there is no way,
then, for people to get to the beach if they can't park there.
So there has to be an alternative plan, and I think that is
specifically what the Park Service said. This would be an
alternative plan. They would still have 961 parking spaces on
Assateague. In case a storm comes, then you would have to
park--some people would have to park on Maddox campground.
So the impact of not having a shuttle, I think, would be
tremendous.
Mr. Wittman. Mr. Chesson, let me get your perspective on
the same question, the economic impact there and whether you
believe the Park Service is incorporating that into their
planning process.
Mr. Chesson. The typical visitor to Chincoteague is a wife
and kids, husband. They will load up their cars with all their
beach gear, their coolers, and go over to the beach and enjoy
the day. And they will not get on a shuttle system and have to
endure waiting in lines, the threat of thunderstorms without
shelter.
It is my opinion that no, our voices are not being heard.
And I haven't seen any evidence that any of our economic
concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Ms. Weber, I was interested in your conversation with us
where you said that you have not had direct conversations with
the parties involved with the development of this plan. I want
you to elaborate on that. I thought that under code, that you
are required under the regulatory adoption process to have
these kinds of conversations, to have these direct
conversations. So I am curious about your comment to where you
said you have not had direct conversations.
Tell me, what is an indirect conversation? Or does that
mean you are not having conversations at all? And if you are
not, we certainly know that that is required.
Ms. Weber. Thank you, sir, for allowing me that
clarification. I sit in Hadley, Massachusetts, but our folks,
our fine staff that sit in Chincoteague National Wildlife
Refuge, have frequent conversations. So I just didn't want to
imply that I had firsthand conversations, but I do understand
that our folks have regular conversations and talk very often
with the public. And we are very committed to continue to do
so.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go ahead and
yield back. I have another question, but I will use that for
the second round.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman.
I understand that the rule vote that we were expecting has
been voice voted. So it appears that when we are called to
vote, it will be a one-time vote, so that is good for us.
Sometimes plans go in your direction, and it did today.
I now recognize Congressman Harris, my good friend Andy
Harris from Maryland, for five minutes.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am
sorry I had to step out to the other committee for a while for
some of the testimony.
But Ms. Weber, and I am going to have to ask the Committee
staff because it says in your testimony that appended are, in
fact, these plans, but I don't--they weren't appended in our
folder. So I don't really know what these plans are.
What is the difference between the first and the second one
in terms of the parking plans? And when you say alternatives
and you are down to three, I assume that is three in addition
to a do-nothing alternative?
Ms. Weber. That includes a do-nothing. And I just want to
remind you, we are in the early stages, still developing this,
so we haven't put our draft out. But I believe that there is no
difference between the first and the second alternative in
beachside parking.
Dr. Harris. And what about in non-beachside parking in the
first and second alternative?
Ms. Weber. I believe those are the same as well, sir.
Dr. Harris. So somewhere in here in all this, I appeared to
get the impression that once you built the offsite parking, as
beach parking was washed away, you wouldn't be replacing it.
Which alternative is that in?
Ms. Weber. Well, status quo right now is we are seeing that
the beach continues to erode away. And we have estimates from
the Corps of Engineers that it would cost approximately $30
million to $40 million to put beach renourishment----
Dr. Harris. My specific question is, under plans A and B,
you start with 961 beach parking. But I assume both of them
have offsite parking as well. Under both plans, would you
maintain those 961 spaces in addition to offsite parking, or
eventually, as they get washed away, you would migrate it to
offsite parking?
Ms. Weber. We plan to have, and all our alternatives right
now have, beachside parking included.
Dr. Harris. What happens when the next big storm comes and
destroys some of your beachside parking under plans A and B? It
is not a complicated question, you see. Because I truly believe
that just like in Assateague, the goal is eventually to move
human beings off the beach. I really do feel that. That just
seems to be the way the Government thinks about these things.
So this is a very simple question because I don't have
the--I don't know why it is not appended here. Under plans A
and B, what happens when the next big storm washes away the
beachside parking?
Ms. Weber. Well, even though we are in the early--by the
way, we also, Fish and Wildlife Service, value visitation. And
people----
Dr. Harris. Could you just answer my question, please? I
only have two and a half more minutes.
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Harris. It has taken you a minute and a half. It is a
simple question.
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir. We----
Dr. Harris. Unless you place no emphasis on the value of
people parking at the beach, I can't understand how it has
taken a minute and a half to answer that question. I just can't
understand it.
Ms. Weber. We do have emphasis on people parking at the
beach. And one of the reasons that we also thought about moving
north----
Dr. Harris. What is the difference between plan A and B
with the 961 spaces? What happens to them when the next big
storm comes? Do you not know?
Ms. Weber. I believe that----
Dr. Harris. No, no. Do you know or not know? I don't want
``I believe.'' What does the plan say? You are here to testify
on plans. These people here, their livelihood depends on your
plans.
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Harris. Now, you are paid good money from Federal
taxpayer dollars to know what is going on in the Wildlife
Service. What are plans A and B going to do when the next big
storm comes and washes away parking? And my citizens from
Maryland want to go down--I don't know why they would want to
go down to Virginia, but they want to go down to Virginia. They
want to spend money at these people's businesses, and they want
to park on the beach. What happens to those parking spots?
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir. We do not have all the details
finalized yet, but we very much have in every one that we have
beachside parking.
Dr. Harris. What happens to the--do you maintain the 961
spaces under those two plans?
Ms. Weber. Status quo right now does not have that. If they
keep getting overwashed like now, we are spending between
$200,000 and $800,000, according to the estimates we received
from the Park Service, to continue----
Dr. Harris. Three and a half minutes. You haven't answered
a very, very simple question. Is the plan ultimately that as
these beachside spaces, if they get washed away, are you going
to spend the money to replace them or are you going to migrate
it offsite?
Ms. Weber. Well, we are still in the early options, but we
are looking at moving the beach a mile and a half north, where
it has shown that we do not have as much beach erosion.
Dr. Harris. So plan A and B at this point do not guarantee
keeping beachside parking spaces?
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Harris. Fascinating.
Ms. Weber. They do have beachside parking.
Dr. Harris. Keeping them regardless of storms. Fascinating.
Ms. Weber. Both alternatives do, sir.
Dr. Harris. So your testimony now is both plans, even if
those 961 spaces are washed away, both plans will restore those
961 spaces?
Ms. Weber. Two of the three, I believe, at this time do
have that, sir.
Dr. Harris. Plan A and B will retain all 961 spaces despite
them being washed away? You would rebuild them?
Ms. Weber. I believe at this time the second and the third
do; the first allows natural processes to occur.
Dr. Harris. But the third doesn't have 961 spaces.
Ms. Weber. No. I believe one of the options being looked at
is 480.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Let's see. And next we have Mr. Rigell from Virginia.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the impact on the local economy, that point has
been well made, and I hold that to be true. So let me focus on
the investment side, Ms. Weber. You know, the good folks of the
2nd District have sent a businessman to serve and represent
them, so I am very comfortable with the numbers. I hope you are
as well because we are going to walk through them today.
The $7-1/2 million, would you agree that that is just the
start? That is absolutely no improvements whatsoever to the
property, the campground purchase?
Ms. Weber. That would be the--I believe, yes.
Mr. Rigell. And under the two options of the three, the
beach parking at the north part of the beach--this is new
parking--that would be a new investment. Correct? Requiring
substantial material being moved, the clearing of woodlands
right there to--I have been there. I know the answer to the
question. But it would require a major investment, would it
not?
Ms. Weber. It would incur costs, sir. I don't have those
numbers.
Mr. Rigell. They would be significant, I assure you. And
also, and I think this is critical to keep in mind--it works
against the very goals of the organization--it would require
the destruction of habitat. I was thinking that the whole time
that Lou was driving me up there. He is showing me where all
these parking places would be at the north end of the beach,
and I am thinking, look at the wildlife that is there now. So
you be working actually working against the objective of
preserving habitat.
Now, so we have got, I think, significant investment,
capital expenditures, that have not yet been calculated. Both
the improvements at the campground, the actual improvements of
the road and the parking on the beach proper, that doesn't even
begin to consider the cost of the purchase of the Disney-type
shuttles. Correct?
Ms. Weber. I don't know what costs you are referring to,
but there will be costs to----
Mr. Rigell. Shuttles. The shuttle system.
Ms. Weber. There is a cost for the shuttles.
Mr. Rigell. I was referring to Disney because I just have
clear memories of that as well. You park in the parking lot and
you are shuttled into the park.
The shuttles themselves, would you agree that that is a
significant expense?
Ms. Weber. I believe that it would be approximately
$900,000 to purchase a shuttle.
Mr. Rigell. Plus the ongoing cost of maintaining them and
running them.
Ms. Weber. Which we estimate to be approximately $200,000 a
year.
Mr. Rigell. $200,000 a year. OK. Now, there is a great
disparity between what you have said is estimates as to what it
has cost to replenish the beach from time to time versus what
the Chairman quoted. He quoted a specific number, and you have
quoted an estimate. How can we reconcile those numbers today?
Ms. Weber. We receive our numbers from the Park Service, so
I would have to go back and get those exact numbers from the
Park Service, sir.
Mr. Rigell. Do you dispute, though, that it could be
significantly--that it could be the numbers that the Chairman
quoted? Correct? Which were, in some cases, one-tenth of what
you quoted.
Ms. Weber. I have no way at this time to say which is the--
where that came from.
Mr. Rigell. Now, let's look at the effect on the local
economy. A shuttle, by any standard, is not going to be
available the moment someone gets out of their car, and then is
going to be transited into the area of the beach. Correct? I
mean, you don't anticipate one, as soon as someone gets out of
their car, that the shuttle is just sitting there?
Ms. Weber. Well, I imagine it would be there, if not
immediately, a moment later.
Mr. Rigell. Oh, but at some--there is going to be some
delay, plus the ride in, plus getting your beach chair, your
cooler, those things that make the beach experience today
really unique and special. And your ability to get all of your
gear out of your car, into right there on the beach.
And when these summer storms pop up in Virginia, they come
up very quickly. You have young children. Are you really going
to sit there and wait on the beach, waiting for the shuttle to
come back around, when you see storm clouds coming from the
West? No. You are going to get in your car and you are going to
leave the beach.
Do you dispute--I just want to ask, one American to
another--do you dispute that there would be some impact--
however slight it may be in your mind, significant in mine--but
however slight, some degradation of the experience, the
convenience, going to a shuttle system? Do you admit that there
is any inconvenience whatsoever?
Ms. Weber. Actually, sir----
Mr. Rigell. Please. I guess, to the point of Dr. Harris
here, our time is so limited. I don't like to interrupt you. I
really don't. But is there any degradation of the convenience
and the appeal of Chincoteague by having to ride a shuttle
system? Just a yes or no, please.
Ms. Weber. Not necessarily.
Mr. Rigell. No. That is where logic is thrown right out the
window. This is what is wrong with America. We are regulating
ourselves out of our prosperity. This is a classic example of
an overly intrusive Federal Government. And as I shared with
Mr. Hinds on the beach that day, I said, if you want to work
together for some solution that keeps folks employed, I am with
you.
But if you go this direction, I will do everything I can to
stop this because you have understated the cost. We are taking
property off the tax rolls in the Town of Chincoteague. So here
we are in America. We are elevating our expenses. We are
reducing our income. And we wonder why we are in a fiscal
crisis.
So I respectfully disagree with you, and I will continue to
fight for the hardworking taxpayers of Virginia and
Chincoteague, and for jobs in Virginia.
Thank you for your testimony today. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. I believe we have completed the first round.
Would the panel be up for a second round? I get enthusiastic
nods. So, with that, I will recognize myself for five minutes.
I have been listening with great interest in all this. It
is a little bit complex and little bit difficult to understand
about movements and contingencies and so forth. And I do think
that this plays into the argument for the Fish and Wildlife
because, for instance, in one of these plans, the plan is to
ultimately have a beachside parking lot, and that sounds great.
Unfortunately, to accomplish that, you have to get over
many, many barriers. You have wetlands and you have EPA and you
have all of these things, which make it unlikely that that
would ever happen.
Then you have the Maddox plan, purchase of Maddox, which
only begins the cost structure. That is not the end at $7.5
million. And that cuts in half the number of parking spots.
And then, even back to the other plan where you have 961
spaces beachside, as you mentioned, Ms. Weber--I am addressing
you--if that gets washed out, then we are back in the same boat
we are today after spending all of this money, even if we can
get past the wetlands issue and EPA.
So can you make some--I mean, I am a logical thinker. I am
a physician, a business person. Everything I do has got to fit
some kind of logic. I am just not getting the logic. Why do we
spend all this money and go through all the trouble and make
all these plans, which we probably can't executive, in order to
end up where we are today? Please explain that to me.
Ms. Weber. Thank you. And just for clarifying purposes, I
was just made aware that all three alternatives, Congressman
Harris, would have parking lot repairs. And we would not
proceed with any alternative if we didn't follow, and were in
compliance with, all legal mandates. And so we believe all of
our----
Dr. Fleming. Well, I get that. But you know how it is
building anything on wetlands and getting things past the EPA.
It is virtually impossible. So, I mean, we are talking about a
1 percent chance of making that happen. So that is why I say,
why would you want to move? I mean, I have maps of the barrier.
It moves north, but it is still in the barrier. It could be
washed out just as easily as the one that we have today.
So, I mean, you could think a little conspiratorial here
and say, well, that is the plan. We don't want it to happen, so
we make a plan that is impossible to execute. You can see that
there is a little bit of cynicism based on past history and
some of the things that we are seeing here today.
And so that is why I ask: Why set about a plan that is
impossible to execute when even at the end of the plan, you are
no better off than you are today, and there are certainly much
fewer dollars? And by that, I mean a beachside parking space.
Ms. Weber. I would like to add that we also have some data
showing from 1966 to 2010 that the southern portion where the
beach is now has eroded at a much faster, and continues to
erode and flood at a much faster rate than where the----
Dr. Fleming. Well, currents can change. That obviously
could reverse, and it could begin at the north. I don't think
that--the rate of erosion is not a very strong argument, in my
opinion. So basically, you are not able today, Ms. Weber, to
explain the logic behind doing this, is what I am
understanding.
Ms. Weber. Behind doing what, sir? Preparing three
alternatives to provide reasonable options, or----
Dr. Fleming. By spending lots of money to move parking lots
to places that even if you could accomplish it, you are no
better off than you are where you are today. That is the logic
I am trying to understand.
Ms. Weber. Actually, we believe it to be a long-term
insurance policy. So not only would we have near-beach parking,
but we would also be able to ensure that on overflow days or
days of emergency situations, we would be able to provide
parking for those situations as well.
So we look at it as a longer-term viability option, while
also taking into consideration the needs of----
Dr. Fleming. Well, but these can wash out just as easily.
Ms. Weber [continuing]. The people tomorrow.
Dr. Fleming. I mean, the parking lots are on the same
barrier. They can wash out just as easily. Is that the way we
should continue to do business? I admit we have been doing
business this way, where we spend tens of millions of dollars
and find ourselves full-circle back where we were. I am sorry,
I am not compelled by that logic.
I do want to ask, in the brief time that I have left, is
how many times has the public parking lot been destroyed in the
last 10 years, the one that we have today?
Ms. Weber. I do not have that number, sir. But I do believe
that we have spent approximately $2.4 million in the last five
years on the parking lots that have overwashed.
Dr. Fleming. Can you give me any idea? One time? Ten times?
Ms. Weber. We just know it has washed several times in
individual years, but we don't have the exact number, sir. I
apologize.
Dr. Fleming. All right. I see my time is up, and I believe
Ms. Hanabusa is up next.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Payne, I have read your testimony, and you seem to be
the person who is in favor of the movement of the parking lot
as well as the purchase of the Maddox family.
Ms. Payne. Right. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Am I correct?
Ms. Payne. You are very correct, yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, can you tell me, there seems to be
potentially this undercurrent going on in the community about
the purchase of the Maddox property.
Ms. Payne. Right.
Ms. Hanabusa. And, in addition, to the movement of the
parking lot.
Ms. Payne. Right.
Ms. Hanabusa. Are they mutually exclusive or are they two
separate concerns?
Ms. Payne. Somewhat, but they are connected. Yes, they are
and they aren't. I mean, yes, you have to have parking for the
tourists to come. We know that. The 961 right now that are on
the beach are very vulnerable because they are so close to the
ocean. So to move the parking lot north into more stable ground
and back a little bit away from the ocean makes sense to me.
Also, purchasing the Maddox campground would do several
things. It would provide for a shuttle bus. It would provide
for an additional 961 parking spaces in case they were wiped
out completely on the beach. Then that would ensure the
business community that tourists could always get to the beach.
That is very important. That is extremely important. That
is mainly why people come to Chincoteague, is to go to the
Assateague beach. And while they are on Chincoteague, they eat,
sleep, buy things. So it is the base of the economy.
Ms. Hanabusa. Let me ask you this, not knowing anything
about your community. When people come to stay at the hotel or
at another ranch or whatever facilities you provide, is parking
then on the beach or is parking at the respective facilities?
Ms. Payne. You mean where they stay?
Ms. Hanabusa. Right. They stay.
Ms. Payne. No. When you go to Assateague, there are--
Assateague is a completely natural beach. Is that where you
mean, where there are things directly on the beach?
Ms. Hanabusa. No. I want to know where people park when
they come to stay in Chincoteague or wherever they may be
staying. Do they park at the facilities that they are staying
at?
Ms. Payne. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Now, Ms. Weber, I gave you the opportunity to think about
my question, which was the relationship between jurisdictions
between yourself and the National Park Service--of Fish and
Wildlife, not yourself. But what is the relationship as it
affects this community?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am. We are in a memorandum of
understanding with the Park Service, and they manage the beach.
And we provide them funding every year through the revenues
generated to help manage the beach.
Ms. Hanabusa. When you gave your opening statements a while
ago, I remember the picture where you have the beach under
water--I mean, the parking lot under water that was before. So
I am curious, and I will share with the people who are fighting
your proposal to repair and to keep parking facilities because
in Hawaii, we have the most number of endangered species
anywhere in the United States. And believe me, you do not see
Fish and Wildlife saying that they are going to rebuild a
parking facility on a beach for us.
But having said that, I am curious because I see it washed
away, and I see new parking. And how do you intend to replace
it if those 961 get washed away? It looks like it is just
encroaching and encroaching.
And you made a statement about $30 million to $40 million
it would cost the Army Corps to restore the beach. Now, how
does this all play together, if it does?
Ms. Weber. Well, we are afraid that, in the long term, that
beach is very vulnerable to beachside flooding as well as
erosion. And we did get early estimates from the Corps of
Engineers that to renourish the beach and put in groins, as
they believe would be necessary, could cost up to $30 million
to $40 million, with another $2 million to $5 million every
three to five years to maintain.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, if you were to do that, that $30 million
to $40 million, would that then maintain the parking lots the
way--would they still be faced with parking lots being washed
away?
Ms. Weber. Yes, ma'am. That is still considered a short-
term fix and not a long-term viable solution.
Ms. Hanabusa. So the amounts, you said that it was $2.4
million in the past five years. Can you provide the Committee
with exactly how much it has cost, whether it is Park Service
or yourself, to maintain and repair the beaches, and how
frequent it is going to be?
Because it seems to be that is your decision, or one
alternative is to move the beach further north, I guess, and
then--because it doesn't erode as quickly. Is that correct?
Ms. Weber. Correct. And yes, we could. I could receive
those numbers from the Park Service and provide it to you.
Ms. Hanabusa. And again, just to emphasize what you said
earlier, you are still in the stakeholder consultation process.
There are no firm plans being made, and these are the
alternatives. So the people of Chincoteague are going to have
their opportunity to play into this decision?
Ms. Weber. Very much so. That is correct.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Harris [presiding]. Thank you very much.
I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for
five minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Weber, I want to go back to you on a direct point. When
you go through the process of soliciting feedback, whether it
is through the Regulatory Flexibility Act, environmental impact
statements, tell me historically, since you work in the
regional office and you have seen these efforts going into
writing these plans, give me an instance where you have gotten
feedback from stakeholders, from the business community, and
others--give me an instance where you have taken those
considerations and have incorporated them into the final
version of the plan, and tell me where it has been different
from the original plan that you have advertised based on the
comments that you have gotten through the public comment
period.
Ms. Weber. Thank you. Most of my career has been spent
working on endangered species, and I have published many plans
where feedback from the local community, whether they be
business owners or other constituents, have provided us very
valuable input. And it has been incorporated into the economic
analysis done on the critical habitat, and decisions have been
made to exclude those areas from critical habitat.
Specific to Chincoteague, even though this is in the very
early stages, we used to have four alternatives. But based on
feedback we received about the concern about not actively
managing the parking lot area, we did exclude that. We dropped
that alternative.
So even though it is very early, I just wanted to
demonstrate an example from this experience as well, sir.
Mr. Wittman. So what you are saying is that the end result
is that the plan that you adopt will unequivocally include the
concerns of the business community and the concerns of others
about the economic viability of Chincoteague based on the plan
and the location of these parking spaces?
Ms. Weber. An economic analysis will be done, and all
public comment will be considered equally.
Mr. Wittman. Considered.
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Incorporated into the plan?
Ms. Weber. Incorporated. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my time
to Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. I thank the gentleman.
I have had the privilege, of course, of being on this
subject area several times. And I think it is important for all
of us to note that not all beach parking is equal. The plan
that is proposed by Mr. Hinds, the ones that refer to moving
that parking north, it is not the equivalent.
Even that isn't the equivalent because the parking as it is
now, the visitor can get out of his or her car and they are
literally on the beach. They are seeing the waves, and they are
right there.
The two proposals that have us decimating, in my view,
habitat--and that is indisputable, in my view--you are parked
back, I would say, several hundred yards from the actual beach.
And then you would be going over a boardwalk across wetlands to
get to the beach.
So you would still have--you wouldn't be able to get out of
your car--which is one of the principal attributes and real
draws to the beach as it is now, is you can have your gear in
your car and the things for your kids and all of that--this
wouldn't be the case. Even if you could park there in the
northern area, you would still be lugging stuff on your
shoulders, and you just--it wouldn't be the same experience.
Now, I want to go back to this whole idea of process, Ms.
Weber. Now, as you look at the NEPA process, I want to ask you
just a couple of questions. Now, would you agree that at least
one of the alternatives does not require the purchasing of
additional land?
Ms. Weber. All three alternatives at this time, sir,
contemplate the supplemental parking.
Mr. Rigell. Well, OK. Let me just--all right. Well, I will
defer to you on that. But let me ask you this. The law requires
that an EIS not be prejudiced by committing resources toward
implementing one management plan while other management plans
are still open for consideration.
It is true that we have several plans out there, several
alternatives. Correct?
Ms. Weber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rigell. Isn't it true, though, that as Mr. Hinds has
stated, basically, if he could tomorrow, he would move
forward--if he had the $7-1/2 million, he would move forward
with purchasing that property. Is that correct?
Ms. Weber. No, sir. We will not be purchasing any property
until the----
Mr. Rigell. That is not what he has told me. If he could
buy that property, he would. So there is a material difference
of fact here that needs to be determined. It has been my
understanding in talking with him that they would move forward
with the purchase.
Why, then, move forward with the application, the $1-1/2
million, if you are not going to go and use that money?
Ms. Weber. Well, the FTA did tell us--we wanted to go ahead
and position ourselves in case that was an outcome of it. And
the FTA did tell us that they would not be granting us those
funds until after this, if indeed until it was finalized in the
CCP, and if that was the alternative that was chosen.
Mr. Rigell. The facts, as I read them, are clear, is that
there is, based on the evidence, based on the action of the
Department, that there is a NEPA violation that has my full
attention. And we are going to give that consideration I need
the attention that it deserves going forward.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. And I yield myself five
minutes for a second round of questions.
Thank you, Ms. Weber, for getting me that answer. I am
sorry that it took four minutes of questioning to actually get
the answer.
You know, it is amazing. These hearings really do serve a
purpose. They really bring to light what the problems with the
Federal Government are when the rubber meets the road. You
know, Mayor Tarr and Supervisor Thornton and Mr. Chesson, don't
worry. The Government is here to help you. Don't worry. The
Federal Government is here, and they are here to help you.
I am going to ask the three of you, very briefly, because I
have a few other questions for Ms. Weber, as she might imagine,
are things that bad that we need to make drastic changes right
now? I mean, we heard that, my gosh, when those storms wash
things out, we are going to have to spend now well over $10
million to create some system to get people back and forth.
I mean, I assume that your businesses--you know, look. That
is the way the businesses work. You have a storm. It washes
out. People come back afterwards. Really briefly, is the system
that badly broken right now, Mayor Tarr?
Mr. Tarr. We don't think so. I think you would have to go
back and look at some of the history of why we are washing over
on a regular basis. The dunes were pushed down--and I am not
going to be able to tell you exactly----
Dr. Harris. That is part of the testimony. Thanks.
And just very briefly, Supervisor Thornton, are things
really broken right now?
Ms. Thornton. No, sir. They are not.
Dr. Harris. Mr. Chesson, are things really broken right
now?
Mr. Chesson. They don't seem to be.
Dr. Harris. Isn't it wonderful the Government is going to
come in and solve your problem. Don't worry, the Government is
going to come in and solve your problem.
Now, Ms. Weber, the Chairman mentioned--I mean, we have a
memo here that says that the cost of the--the payroll costs,
the materials, and supplies for damage repairs from the
Nor'easter Ida was $34,000. Hurricane Irene was $69,000. Where
the heck does the $700,000 come from in your testimony, your
written testimony?
Ms. Weber. That comes from the National Park Service, sir.
Dr. Harris. And I am going to ask you to ask the Chairman
to supply those numbers to the Committee.
Is it really true, Mayor Tarr, that Mr. Hinds said--his
comment was--because you have it in quotes in your testimony--
``The American people have become too dependent on their
vehicles''?
Mr. Tarr. That is correct.
Dr. Harris. Wow, that is a pretty American approach to take
from someone from the Government.
Ms. Weber, I visited up north of you at our place, and they
gave me a copy of their alternatives. And I was struck by the
number of times the words ``climate change'' appeared in it. Do
you think that is the greatest threat to your Refuge, the
Refuge we are talking about today?
Ms. Weber. I believe the greatest threat to the Refuge
today is beach erosion and flooding, sir.
Dr. Harris. And is it due to climate change?
Ms. Weber. Some models predict so, but we----
Dr. Harris. Is that the greatest threat? Is the greatest
threat--it is a simple question.
Ms. Weber. I believe----
Dr. Harris. Is the greatest threat due to climate change?
Ms. Weber. I do not know that, sir.
Dr. Harris. But you are making a plan based on future
modeling, and you said the words ``sea level rise'' in your
testimony. It says the words ``sea level rise.'' Now, sea level
rise assumes that climate change is a major issue, and it must
take modeling about what the sea level rise is going to be.
I mean, I assume that if you are going to plan to spend
tens of millions of dollars to help these folks when they don't
really want help, you had better have a model. What model of
climate change did you use in the assumptions for your plans?
Ms. Weber. We are not using those models, sir, even though
they do exist.
Dr. Harris. You used no model for climate change in your
plan?
Ms. Weber. We are using the past. That is why I put up the
photo, sir. We are using what has happened in the past. We have
already lost over 800 feet since 1967.
Dr. Harris. So you are not using a climate change model for
the future; you are just extrapolating a line from the past? Is
that--or could you get me--I am going to ask you in a question
subsequent to please provide the Committee with the modeling
used. And again, I assume you are doing this scientifically. I
assume because you are certainly not doing it economically
because these folks are telling you, it is not broke. You know,
people get there.
The Representatives who represent the districts say, look.
Their people aren't complaining about it. I don't get
complaints from my people that they have to wait in line in a
car when they unfortunately drive south of the border to
Virginia.
So something has to be driving this. And my suspicion is,
is because I saw the same thing happen up north when I visited,
is that there is an overwhelming bias from this Administration,
and it trickles down to every level, in that, oh my God, we
have to protect against this tremendous climate change that is
going to occur, and the sea level rising up to 30 feet.
Let me tell you, I represent the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
If that sea level rises the way some of these projections are,
the last thing we have to worry about is the beach. It is the
last thing we are going to have to worry about.
So just again, I look forward to seeing the final copies of
this. I guess I am going to have to make a trip down there and
see this personally. Now I am going to have to cross that
border into Virginia. I will visit you, Mayor.
And I am going to yield back the balance of my time and
recognize the Representative from the district, Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. I thank the Chairman. And Ms. Weber, I would
like for us to continue our conversation.
Would you agree that the creation of the parking lots,
those proposed in the north of the beach at present, would
actually destroy acres of what are now currently woodlands?
Ms. Weber. I don't believe--we are still in the process of
looking where the best placement would be, sir. No final
decisions have been made.
Mr. Rigell. No. There is a specific--we need to deal with
reality here. There is specificity in this matter. I was taken
by Lou and shown where the parking lots would go, or their
approximate position. But it is not in dispute that the two
options include the destruction of what is currently woodlands.
Can we agree on that?
Ms. Weber. No, because I don't believe any final decision
is made. But I do----
Mr. Rigell. You are stretching the bounds of common sense,
logic, and the English language here. I do not take any
pleasure in zeroing in on this, but I have a duty to the
citizens of the Commonwealth and those I have the privilege to
represent and my children and grandchildren.
It will require the destruction of what is now woodlands.
There is no alternative to that. There is no parking there
presently. The options say that we are going to create parking
for hundreds and hundreds of cars. Logic demands that
bulldozers push over the trees and all the habitat that we all
want to protect. I do not concede this point to you.
Now, second, I do not concede your point that perhaps it
may reduce--or not necessarily so, was your point--that it
wouldn't necessarily reduce the attractiveness of using the
beach to have to ride a trolley system. Is that still your
testimony, that having to ride a shuttle versus the convenience
of being able to pull right up, see the waves and the beach,
and let your kids out, is it still your testimony that it is
not necessarily going to impact the attractiveness of going to
Chincoteague to have people be forced to ride a shuttle system?
Ms. Weber. Sir, in my mind I was thinking about those poor
folks that have to wait in their car until the 961st person
leaves. I was just thinking that it might be more preferable to
them to be able to park and ride a shuttle in rather than wait
for----
Mr. Rigell. Help me to understand your point, so I want to
give you credit here. You are thinking of the 961 people?
Ms. Weber. Well, there are 961 spaces, and this is just
supplemental parking that the shuttle would be accommodating.
And so I was thinking about those folks that have to wait until
somebody leaves, until a parking space became available. So I
thought they might even be looking at it as beneficial, so that
they didn't have to wait in their car, whether it be hot or
not, and be able to get to the beach in a sooner manner.
Mr. Rigell. Sooner than what? Waiting?
Ms. Weber. Correct, in their car. When there are no spots
left, people either leave or they wait in their car in a line
until there is availability.
Mr. Rigell. You know, to Ms. Payne's point earlier--and I
have discussed this with the Mayor and others--if we knew that
the beach parking was going to be preserved and replenished,
which is, I think, the right plan, I will be happy, Ms. Payne,
to stand by exactly what I said.
If we wanted to set aside some parking offsite as a reserve
to be used only in the reserve, but we had a definitive written
agreement that the parking was going to be preserved on the
beach and replenished because it is the most cost-effective
approach, I would work with you on that.
Ms. Payne. May I just say that that is--again, from what
you said in the letter that was in the Beacon from you, you
seemed to indicate that you supported all of this.
Mr. Rigell. No.
Ms. Payne. I was very happy to read this letter because I
thought things were going to get a lot better.
Mr. Rigell. Ms. Payne, here is the critical difference
between, I think, your interpretation of what I said and what I
mean here, is this, is that I only support the purchase of the
property offsite if there is an absolute, absolute assurance
that the current parking, the 900-plus parking spaces that we
currently have, we have the agreement of the Service that it
makes sense for a host of reasons to preserve it and to agree
to replenish it.
The city has made multiple efforts to reach out here to
help supplement the funding there. And also, the city itself
wrote a letter to the Service saying that they would be very
open to having their own kind of emergency transit system set
up--correct, Mayor?
Mr. Tarr. That's correct.
Mr. Rigell. And to my knowledge, there has been no reply
whatsoever to that letter.
So I don't think there is a--in summary, if I may--will the
Chairman yield just an additional minute?
Dr. Harris. Yes. We will yield.
Mr. Rigell. I appreciate the Ranking Member--thank you so
much. I serve on the House Armed Services Committee, and it is
very sobering to hear the Chairman, or former Chairman, of the
Joint Chiefs testify that the greatest threat to this country
is our national debt and interest on our national debt.
The Service has failed to make the case, in my view, that
this need is so urgent, so compelling, that we have to borrow
from our children and grandchildren to do this. It is
indisputable in my view that the costs are far greater than
what you have testified here today, that the expenses of
operating it have not been truly considered.
Nor have you considered and factored in the loss of revenue
to local economy and the families that would be devastated by
this. I know what it is like to run a small business and to not
be able--you look at the payroll and you can't make it the next
week.
And this indisputably would hurt the company. I think it
works against the very goals that the President has put forth
in job creation. So I oppose it today for a host of reasons--
environmental, process, NEPA, cost.
And I respectfully ask that you just put a full stop to
this, and work with the city and the good folks and the local
wisdom of the Town of Chincoteague. And thank you again for
being here.
Thank you to all of our guests today. Thank you for
testifying. I yield back.
Dr. Harris. Thank you, Congressman Rigell.
I would like to thank all our witnesses for their valuable
testimony. I would like to compliment Congressman Rigell for
his tireless dedication on behalf of his constituents in
Chincoteague. I do want to ask unanimous consent to have the
following items added for the record:
Congressman Rigell's letter to the Director of Fish and
Wildlife Service;
A resolution from the Town Council of Chincoteague opposed
to acquisition of the Maddox family campground;
A resolution from Accomack County Board of Supervisors on
the land purchase;
A letter from Chincoteague Chamber of Commerce;
Signed contract between Fish and Wildlife Service and Wayne
Maddox and Mary Lou Birch to buy the Maddox family campground;
Notice of grant award from the Department of
Transportation;
Application for Federal assistance under the Paul Sarbanes
Transit in the Parks Program, signed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service;
Three articles from the Washington Post;
Damage estimates on Hurricane Irene, a nor'easter, from the
Fish and Wildlife Service;
News release from the Fish and Wildlife Service announcing
the $1.5 million Federal grant from dot; and
An article in the Beacon written by Congressman Rigell.
Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Harris. Members of the Subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to these
in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 days to
receive these responses.
I want to thank the Members and their staffs for their
contributions to the hearing.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter from The Honorable E. Scott Rigell to the Director of
Fish and Wildlife Service follows:]
January 17, 2012
Mr. Dan Ashe
Director
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive Mailstop 330
Arlington, VA 22203
Dear Director Ashe,
I was disturbed to receive notification today that the Chincoteague
National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR) applied for and was awarded a $1.5
million dollar Federal Transportation Administration grant through the
Sarbanes Transit in Parks program for a ``Chincoteague Park and Ride
Facility''. This project is not supported by the local community and is
blatantly out of order with respect to the Refuge's ongoing
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Moving this project forward
ahead of the CCP undermines the integrity of the public process
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and raises a
number of ethical questions.
As you may know, the CNWR is home to a very popular and easily
accessible public beach, which makes Chincoteague one of the most
visited attractions in the Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge attracts
nearly 1.5 million visitors per year, due in no small part to the
exceptional accessibility of the public beach. The economy of the Town
of Chincoteague depends heavily on tourist dollars brought in by
beachgoers. Consequently, the town is very sensitive to potential
changes within the Refuge.
More than a year ago, Chincoteague officials made me aware of their
concerns that Refuge managers plan to use the NEPA mandated fifteen
year CCP to significantly alter beach access by replacing the current
parking lot with a transit system which would require beachgoers to
park off site and take a shuttle to and from the beach. Town officials
adamantly oppose such a system which would cause a significant decline
in tourism and economic activity in the town.
While NEPA requires a public, open, and transparent CCP process,
town officials have expressed their concern that Refuge managers seem
intent on installing a transit system without regard for the will of
the public or the local economy. I have met with Refuge Manager Lou
Hinds multiple times and each time he has assured me that these
concerns are not warranted.
In my view this grant lends credibility to the town's fears that
Refuge managers have already decided on their plan and that the public
process is nothing more than a pro forma exercise with a foregone
conclusion. This makes a mockery of the NEPA process and the intent of
Congress. To be clear, I see this as a classic example of a
paternalistic federal government imposing its will without regard for
the will or economic well being of the people.
I expect an immediate and clear answer to the following questions:
1. My staff and I have been in constant contact with Lou Hinds
for the past year. In that time he failed to mention that he
had applied for this grant. Why?
2. The CNWR is purchasing property for a ``Chincoteague Park
and Ride Facility'' while the official CCP is still in its
early stages. In light of this, how can anyone be expected to
have confidence in the public process? How can we believe
serious consideration is being given to draft alternatives that
do not call for a public transit system?
3. What weight do local economic considerations carry in the
CCP process?
4. If the beach parking is replaced with a Park and Ride
Facility, will Refuge visits decline? If so, what will be the
level of decline? How will this impact the Chincoteague
economy?
5. If the final CCP eliminates all or some of the beach
parking, one result will likely be loss of local jobs. How many
lost jobs does the FWS consider acceptable?
Please respond to these questions in detail by Tuesday, January 24,
2012.
Anyone who has spent any time in Chincoteague understands
intuitively that the local economy is inextricably linked to the public
beach. I take it as a given that any conservation plan which makes the
beach more difficult to access will drive tourists away causing fewer
people to partake in all that Chincoteague has to offer. Businesses
will suffer and jobs will be lost. I will do everything in my capacity
as a Member of Congress to prevent that from happening.
Yours in Freedom
Scott Rigell
Member of Congress
______
[House Joint Resolution No. 226, 112th Congress follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A letter submitted for the record by Ted Lewis, President,
Chincoteague Chamber of Commerce, Chincoteague Island, Virginia, to The
Honorable Jack Tarr, Mayor, Town of Chincoteague, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Resolution of Accomack County Board of Supervisors approved
February 15, 2012, submitted for the record follows:]
The documents listed below have been retained in the Committee=s
official files:
1. Land Purchase Agreement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
2. Maddox, Wayne, Letter to Chairman Fleming submitted for the
record
3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Application to the
Department of Transportation to Obtain Money from the Paul
Sarbanes Transit in the Parks Program submitted for the record
4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service News Release
5. Washington Post, Three articles submitted for the record
6. Virginia Beacon newspaper article submitted for the record
______
[Resolution of Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, approved December 5,
2011, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]