[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4094, ``PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS
NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA ACT''; AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
``ACCESS DENIED: TURNING AWAY VISITORS TO NATIONAL PARKS''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE AND
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Friday, April 27, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-108
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-982 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 D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC Betty Sutton, OH
Scott R. Tipton, CO Niki Tsongas, MA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID John Garamendi, CA
Kristi L. Noem, SD Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Steve Southerland II, FL Paul Tonko, NY
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
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 NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
David Rivera, FL John Garamendi, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Vacancy
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Mark Amodei, NV
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, April 27, 2012........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Couch, John, President, Outer Banks Preservation Association,
North Carolina............................................. 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 4094.......................... 25
Crook, Karl C., President and CEO, Crook and Crook Inc., DBA
Crook and Crook Fishing and Marine Supplies................ 42
Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing.................. 43
Curlett, John J., Florida Resident........................... 45
Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing.................. 47
Diaz-Balart, Hon. Mario, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, Oral statement on Oversight Hearing.. 7
Frost, Herbert C., Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 4094.......................... 11
Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing.................. 13
Jones, Hon. Walter B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, Oral statement on H.R. 4094....... 4
Judge, Warren, Chairman, Dare County Board of Commissioners,
County of Dare, North Carolina............................. 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 4094.......................... 18
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida....................................... 6
Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing.................. 6
Wright, Kenneth W., Vice-Chair, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission.................................... 30
Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing.................. 31
Additional materials supplied:
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 63
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4094, TO AUTHORIZE PEDESTRIAN AND MOTORIZED
VEHICULAR ACCESS IN CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL
SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA ACT''; AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``ACCESS
DENIED: TURNING AWAY VISITORS TO NATIONAL PARKS.''
----------
Friday, April 27, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:06 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Rivera, Duncan, Grijalva,
and Holt.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. The Committee will come to order. You just
heard the gavel bang. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum.
Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member; however, I ask unanimous consent
to include any Members' opening statements in the hearing
record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business
today. And hearing no objections, it will be so ordered.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on how the national
park visitors are increasingly being denied access to our
national parks in all defiance of common sense.
Although we will focus on two examples today, the Biscayne
National Park in Florida and Cape Hatteras in North Carolina,
these overly restrictive policies show signs of developing into
a nationwide problem that may require congressional action to
correct, which is why today's hearing is both an oversight
hearing as well as a legislative hearing.
In our oversight capacity, we will hear from the Park
Service on a plan by the Biscayne National Park to close a
popular 10,000-acre area to fishing and further restrict
activities in other parts of the park. We will also hear from
the knowledgeable local experts who are intimately familiar
with the park and can provide insight into the scientific
issues involved and also tell us what effect the closure will
have on recreational opportunities and on the local economy.
The legislative part of the hearing today will look at H.R.
4094, introduced by our friend, Mr. Jones from North Carolina,
whose district includes Cape Hatteras.
This bill will restore reasonable pedestrian and motorized
access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational
Area. This bill will reinstitute a 2007 Park Service management
plan that was based on a thorough biological opinion done by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that shorebirds
and the piping plover and the sea turtles would not be
jeopardized by park activities.
Unfortunately, Federal authorities have acquiesced to the
demands of a lawsuit brought by the environmental activist
special interest groups for restrictions that go far beyond
those found needed in the biological opinion. As a result,
access to one of the top surf fishing spots in this country is
severely restricted, and many local companies have seen up to a
50 percent decline in their business.
So we welcome you here. We look forward to the testimony.
I now turn to Mr. Grijalva for any opening remarks he may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands is
meeting today to hear testimony on how National Park visitors are
increasingly being denied access to our nation's parks. Although we
will focus on two examples today, Biscayne National Park in Florida and
Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, these overly restrictive policies show
signs of developing into a nation-wide problem that may require
Congressional action to correct. That is why today's hearing is both an
oversight hearing and a legislative hearing.
In our oversight capacity, we will hear from the Park Service on a
plan by Biscayne National Park to close a popular 10,000 acre area to
fishing and further restrict activities in in other parts of the park.
We will also hear from knowledgeable local experts who are intimately
familiar with the park and can provide insights into the scientific
issues involved and also tell us what effect the closure will have on
recreational opportunities and on the local economy.
The legislative part of today's hearing will look at H.R. 4094,
introduced by Mr. Jones whose district includes Cape Hatteras. This
bill would restore reasonable pedestrian and motorized access to the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. This bill would
reinstitute a 2007 Park Service management plan that was based on a
thorough Biological Opinion done by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to
ensure that a shorebird, the piping plover, and sea turtles would not
be jeopardized by park activities.
Unfortunately, federal authorities have acquiesced to the demands
and lawsuits brought by environmental activists for restrictions that
go far beyond those found needed in the biological opinion. As a
result, access to one of the top surf fishing spots in the country is
severely restricted and many local companies have seen a 50% decline in
business.
I now turn to Mr. Grijalva for his opening remarks.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Summer vacation for many families is being planned as we
speak, and if you would listen to those who planned this
hearing, you would think that there was no way to visit a
national seashore or park this summer. The last thing people
want on their beach vacation is conflict. We get enough of
that, from my experience, with the kids in the backseat.
The parks are dealing with dueling mandates issued nearly a
century ago. They constantly have to balance the protection of
resources with providing recreational access. In the two issues
we are hearing about today, the issue is that certain people
don't agree with the balance the Park Service is seeking to
strike. Never mind the public process and sound science that
informed the agency; people want to go outside that process and
have legislators put their finger on the scale.
In the first case today, we are dealing with a bill that
overrides years of work done by various organizations to reach
a sound management plan. Second, we will have an oversight
hearing on a plan that isn't even finished. Both of these plans
have sound science supporting the suggestions--something
everyone may not like, but it is a nonpartisan view.
I welcome the witnesses here today. I would have liked to
welcome locals from the Outer Banks communities who have a
different opinion than those that are here today.
Unfortunately, those who have spoken out on this issue in town
have been harassed and in some cases threatened. We ask for
people to be involved in their government, yet in this
situation people are ridiculed, have nails put in their
driveway, and in one case photos were taken inside of a home as
a threat. What a sad commentary on a situation that should
involve the entire community.
Cape Hatteras has over 60 miles of beach with only 9 miles
closed to resource protection. In our oversight hearing today,
we are intervening in a public process because we are unhappy
with the direction of that process. The plan is still a draft,
and the National Park Service has engaged the community
throughout this process.
One witness will testify about children fishing in the
Biscayne Bay and the challenges with the marine reserve zone.
Another group wanted to share their scuba diving stories with
young people and how they see fewer fish each year. It is about
choices we make and how they affect the future.
Thank you again to our panelists. I look forward to hearing
from you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Summer vacation for many families is being planned as we speak.
If you would listen to those who planned this hearing today, you
would think that there was no way to visit a national seashore or park
this summer.
The last thing people want on their beach vacation is conflict.
They get enough of that from the kids riding in the back seat of the
car.
The parks are dealing with the dueling mandates issued nearly a
century ago--they constantly have to balance the protection of
resources with providing for recreational access.
In the two issues we are hearing about today, the issue is that
certain people don't agree with the balance the Park Service is seeking
to strike.
Nevermind the public processes and sound science that informed the
agency--people want to go outside of that process and have legislators
put their finger on the scale.
In the first case today, we are dealing with a bill that overrides
years of work done by various organizations to reach a sound management
plan.
Second, we will have an oversight hearing on a plan that isn't even
finished.
Both of these plans have sound science supporting the suggestions,
something that everyone may not like, but it is a non-partisan view.
I welcome the witnesses here today.
I would have liked to welcome locals from the Outer Banks
communities who have a different opinion than those here.
Unfortunately, those who have spoken out on this issue in town have
been harassed, and in some cases, threatened.
We ask for people to be involved in their government, yet in this
situation, people are ridiculed, have nails put in their driveway, and
in one case, photos were taken inside of a home as a threat. What a sad
commentary on this situation!
Cape Hatteras has over 60 miles of beach, with only 9 miles closed
for resource protection.
In our oversight hearing today, we are again intervening in a
public process because some are unhappy with the direction of the
process.
The plan is still a draft and the National Park Service has engaged
the community in the process.
One witness will testify about children fishing in the Biscayne Bay
and the challenges with the Marine Reserve Zone. Another group wanted
to share their scuba diving stories with young people and how they see
fewer fish each year. It is about choices that we make and how they
affect the future.
I have letters of support to submit for the record on both bills.
Thank you, again, to our panelist. I look forward to hearing from
you all.
______
Mr. Bishop. We will now hear from our first panel, which
consists of our colleagues: first, Representative Jones from
North Carolina, who will talk about H.R. 4094; then our two
friends from Florida, who will talk about what is happening in
the Biscayne area.
I would invite all three of you, if you wish, to stay with
us for the entire testimony and be part of the panel. And if
anyone wishes to be part of the panel, I would ask unanimous
consent that they be allowed to join us up here for as long as
they wish to stay.
Seeing no objection, we are OK.
Now, realizing I have often made that offer to friends who
have come here to testify and I have yet to have anyone accept
that offer, if you decide to testify and go, I will take it
personally and I will remember it for a hell of a long time.
But having said that, you all know the drill. You have 5
minutes for oral presentations. You have the clock in front of
you. Yellow is the light that means you have 1 minute left, and
red is the time has expired.
So, Congressman Jones, we will turn the 5 minutes over to
you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Ranking Member
and Committee members for giving me an opportunity to talk
about H.R. 4094.
This bill is about jobs, it is about taxpayers' right to
access the recreational areas they own, and it is about
restoring balance and common sense to Park Service management.
H.R. 4094 would overturn a final rule implemented by the
National Park Service in mid-February as well as a 2008 United
States District Court order consent decree. The rule and the
consent decree excessively restrict taxpayers' access to Cape
Hatteras National Recreational Area, and they are unnecessary
to protect the wildlife.
H.R. 4094 would reinstitute the Park Service's 2007 interim
management strategy to govern vista access and species
protection at Cape Hatteras. The interim strategy was backed by
a 113-page biological opinion issued by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service which found that it would not jeopardize
piping plover, sea turtles, or other species of concern.
In addition to providing adequate protection for wildlife,
H.R. 4094 would give taxpayers more reasonable access to the
lands they own. It would reopen the 26 miles of beach that are
now permanently closed to motorized beach access and give
seashore managers flexibility to implement more balanced
measures that maximize both recreational access and species
protection. By doing so, the bill would reverse the significant
job loss and economic decline that Hatteras Island has
experienced since the consent decree cut off access to many of
the most popular areas of the seashore.
To give you an idea of how bad it is, I would like to
submit a collection of notarized affidavits from Hatteras
Island business owners.
Hal Lester of Buxton states that his restaurant has seen a
total loss of 50 percent of business since the consent decree.
``Previously, I had a staff of up to 12 people. Now our
workforce is half that size, and we struggle to survive.''
Motel owner Jackie Gray of Buxton states that ``during the
first year under the consent decree, we experienced a sudden 50
percent drop in business from the preceding year. This year, my
business is down an additional 65 percent. Before the consent
decree, my business employed six people. Because of the
closure, we now have only two employees. Our 53-year-old
business is now in jeopardy.''
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, the bottom line here is
that the Federal Government is unnecessarily blocking the
public from a national seashore created for their recreation,
and, in doing so, it is destroying jobs. We can fix this
problem by enacting H.R. 4094, and there is broad bipartisan
public support for doing so.
I am grateful that North Carolina Senators Richard Burr and
Senator Kay Hagan came together yesterday to jointly introduce
a Senate companion of H.R. 4094. The bill is also supported by
a wide variety of national sportsmen and fishing groups,
including the American Sportfishing Association, Recreational
Fishing Alliance, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal
Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation,
and International Game Fish Association. These groups and many
others have signed letters supporting H.R. 4094, and I would
like to include those in the record.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is urgently needed,
and I urge the Subcommittee to quickly take action to approve
it.
With that, before closing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
I would like to say: The Republicans talk about jobs; the
Democrats talk about jobs. Let's save the economy of Dare
County.
And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Bishop. If you will provide those other letters and
supporting documents, we will include those in the record,
without objection.
All right, let's turn to our good friends from Florida. The
gentlelady from Florida, to talk about this particular issue,
is going to be recognized for 5 minutes, if you would.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Chairman Bishop,
Ranking Member Grijalva, Mr. Rivera, and Dr. Holt. Thank you so
much for the opportunity to speak before you today.
Biscayne National Park is vital to my constituents, for
their livelihoods as much as for their own recreation. Since
the park announced that it would update its general management
plan, I have heard from numerous anglers and boaters about
their concerns that this magnificent resource might not remain
truly accessible.
Just this past Monday, I sat down with my congressional
colleagues David Rivera and Mario Diaz-Balart to discuss with
Superintendent Mark Lewis the five alternative proposed general
management plans. Alternative 4 might turn out to be the
preferred framework of park managers. Following this meeting, I
asked several members of our South Florida community who are
heavily involved with Biscayne National Park to share their
thoughts on what Alternative 4 would mean to them were it to be
implemented. The responses I received offered strong objections
to the proposed plan.
All were unified in opposing the controversial proposed
marine reserve zone, which would close all fishing, that they
say is overly restrictive. The marine reserve zone would be
over 10,000 acres or 7 percent of the park's marine waters and
is almost 30 percent of the park's reef tract.
The loss of fishing opportunities and their associated
economic impacts would be significant on our community. These
park users consider the closures of the most popular and
productive fishing waters draconian and based on flimsy,
outdated or simply feel-good speculation of perceived benefits.
Another common theme that emerged was disbelief that the
park chose to disregard the recommendations of the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which cooperatively
manages the park's fishing resources, and the park's own
Fisheries Management Plan Stakeholders Working Group.
We all share the same goal of ensuring healthy, vibrant,
and sustainable park and fisheries. With careful management,
our beloved Biscayne National Park will remain a jewel of our
community and available for generations of visitors to respect
and enjoy. I expect that this hearing will help preserve the
unique culture surrounding south Florida's water-centered way
of life while also protecting our environment and maintaining
public access to the park's waters.
Thank you to all the Members, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony again.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Biscayne National Park is vital to my constituents, for their
livelihoods as much as their own recreation.
Since the park announced that it would update its General
Management Plan, I have heard from numerous anglers and boaters about
their concerns that this magnificent resource might not remain truly
accessible.
Just this past Monday, I sat down with my Congressional colleagues
David Rivera and Mario Diaz-Balart to discuss with Superintendent Mark
Lewis five alternative proposed General Management Plans.
Alternative #4 might turn out to be the preferred framework of park
managers.
Following this meeting I asked several members of our South Florida
community who are heavily involved with Biscayne National Park to share
their thoughts on what Alternative #4 would mean to them if
implemented.
The responses I received offered strong objections to the proposed
plan.
And all were unified in opposing the controversial proposed Marine
Reserve Zone--which could close all fishing--that they say is overly
restrictive.
The MRZ would be over 10 thousand acres, or 7% of the park's marine
waters, and is almost 30% of the park's reef tract.
The loss of fishing opportunities, and their associated economic
impacts, would be significant.
These park users consider the closure of the most popular and
productive fishing waters draconian and based on flimsy, outdated and
or simply feel-good speculation of perceived benefits.
Another common theme that emerged was disbelief that the Park chose
to disregard the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, which cooperatively manages the park's
fisheries resources, and the park's own Fishery Management Plan
Stakeholder Working Group.
We all share the same goal of ensuring healthy, vibrant, and
sustainable park and fishery.
With careful management our beloved Biscayne National Park will
remain a jewel of our community and available for generations of
visitors to respect and enjoy.
I expect that this hearing will help preserve the unique culture
surrounding South Florida's water-centered way of life, while also
protecting our environment and maintaining public to access the park's
waters.
______
Mr. Bishop. Representative Diaz-Balart, if you would like
to take 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARIO DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank
you, and Mr. Ranking Member and members of this Committee. I
think my colleague from South Florida really explained it as
well as anybody could, and so I will just add--I will skip my
statement and just add some points to it.
Look, a couple things. This is a park that is highly
utilized. It is right next to a large urban area. By the way, I
speak to you--we speak to you not only as Members of Congress
but as those who use that park. It is a park that is used by
thousands and thousands of people for fishing, for scuba
diving, for bird watching, et cetera.
And I think just one of the things that has to be pointed
out: Nobody cares more about the future of that area, about the
health of that area than those that use it, than those that
benefit from it, than Floridians. My colleague mentioned the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. This is a commission,
these are individuals who dedicate their lives, frankly, to
protect the pristine areas of Florida. And Florida is very
aggressive in doing so.
So when we now see that--there have been meetings for a
long, long time with the Florida stakeholders. And when this
recommendation comes out, basically pretty much unanimously
almost, all of those that were in the negotiations, that were
in the conversation are, frankly, highly dissatisfied. Why are
they dissatisfied? Because they believe that their thoughts,
their recommendations, their ideas in order to protect this
area without being overly intrusive were, frankly, just
disregarded. And I repeat, nobody cares more about that area
than those that live there, that utilize that park. That is
number one.
Number two is, you know, Florida, the entire U.S. economy
is struggling. I don't have to tell you all that. Florida's is
struggling more than the rest of the Nation. One of the largest
industries that we have, one of the most important industries
is this, is recreation, is fishing, is boating and boat
manufacture.
Now, I will be honest with you, if you own a 75-foot boat
or a 60-foot boat, you can go anywhere. But if you have a small
one, where do you go? You go to the accessible, wonderful
pristine places that are right next-door because that is what
you can do if you have a small boat. That is who is going to be
affected--not only those people who own those small boats or
who borrow or charter those small boats, but the manufacturer
of those small boats.
So to wrap it up, Mr. Chairman and members of this
Committee, closing off areas to those that pay for the
management of the areas I believe has to be the last resort,
the last thing you do. If everything else has been tried and
has not been successful, then you can do that. But to do it
when the stakeholders in that area who love this area, who
protect this area, who utilize this area are telling us pretty
much unanimously that there are other options, better options,
we think that those options have to be explored first before
something as draconian as this takes place.
So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, members
of the Committee. I share the concerns and the thoughts of my
colleagues, of both my colleagues from South Florida,
Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. David Rivera, who has also been
a leader in this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership
and for this opportunity.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate all three of you being here.
Does anyone have questions for our colleagues?
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't have a question, but I would like to just briefly
state that I have seen this movement over the years of trying
to turn some of our national parks into wilderness areas, and
it never was intended to be that way.
And then, also, I have noticed that some Federal and State
wildlife and fisheries people seem to want to turn these areas
into their own personal playgrounds and restrict access to
ordinary people. Certainly, that makes their jobs easier, but
it is a very elitist type of attitude, and it is just
disgusting to me. These areas should be made as open and as
accessible to as many people as possible and shouldn't be
restricted to the wealthy or the elites.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Appreciate that.
Anything else?
If not, we thank you for your testimony here. It is nice to
have a local viewpoint, for what good that does, it is nice to
have a local viewpoint here. You still have the option of
staying here with us if you would like to do that. If you have
other business, we totally understand. I won't forgive you, but
I will understand.
Mr. Bishop. With that, we would like to invite the other
witnesses up. We will just have everyone come up to the panel
at the same time.
So if I could invite up to the table Herbert Frost, who is
from the National Resource Stewardship and Science from the
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior; Warren
Judge, who will be testifying on 4094, who is with the Dare
County Board of Commissioners, Dare County, North Carolina;
John Couch, President of the Outer Banks Preservation
Association from North Carolina; Kenneth Wright, who is the
Vice Chairman of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission; K.C. Crook, who is a resident in Florida; and Jack
Curlett, who is representing himself.
We thank you all for being here. I think the drill is the
same as it was with the prior panel. You have the clock before
you. You have 5 minutes to give your oral testimony. We are
going to try and keep that specific to the 5 minutes. The green
light means you have plenty of time; the yellow light means you
have 1 minute left; and the red, we really want you to quit on
the red.
And the same thing for the panel. When you have questions,
when the red hits, we want it done on the questioning as well.
So, with that, make sure you pull the microphones close to
you as you testify. Let me start going down there with Mr.
Frost. And unlike other times, if you would like to testify on
both bills, the oversight portion of what is happening in
Biscayne as well as 4094, at the same time, that would be fine.
Mr. Frost, please.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's view on H.R. 4094.
This legislation would reinstate the 2007 interim protected
species management strategy governing off-road vehicle use at
Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
The Department strongly opposes H.R. 4094. The Department
supports allowing appropriate public use and access at the
seashores to the greatest extent possible, while we ensure
protection of the seashore's wildlife, provide a variety of
visitor uses, minimize conflicts among users, and promote
safety.
We strongly believe that the final ORV management plan and
special regulation will accomplish these objectives far better
than the defunct interim strategy. The plan and regulation, for
the first time, provide long-term guidance for the management
of ORV use and for the protection of affected wildlife species
at the seashore.
The seashore's dynamic coastal processes create important
habitats, including breeding sites for many important species
of beach-nesting birds. These species experienced declines in
breeding populations at Cape Hatteras over the past 10 to 20
years prior to the implementation of the consent decree in
2008. Under our laws and regulations and policies, the National
Park Service has an affirmative responsibility to conserve and
protect these species as well as other resources and values of
the seashore. In addition, the Service is required to designate
any routes or areas for ORV use by special regulation.
The ORV management plan, a special regulation, brings the
seashore into compliance with applicable laws and policies
after many years of noncompliance. The plan also addresses past
inconsistent management of ORV use, user conflicts, and safety
concerns in a comprehensive manner.
Although wildlife breeding success depends on a number of
factors with the measures in place under the consent decree,
there has been a striking improvement in the condition of
protected beach-nesting wildlife species. Many of these
measures have been adapted in the management plan. The seashore
has experienced a record number of piping plover pairs and
fledge chicks, American oystercatcher fledge chicks, least tern
nests, and improved nesting results for other species of
nesting colonial waterbirds. The number of sea turtles' nests
also has significantly increased. These improvements occurred
even though many miles of the beach remain open, unaffected by
species protection measures, and seashore visitation numbers
remain stable.
During the preparation of the management plan, the National
Park Service evaluated the potential of environmental impacts
of long-term implementation of the interim strategy. The
analysis determined that if the interim strategy were
continued, it would result in a long-term moderate to major
adverse impact to piping plovers, American oystercatchers, and
colonial waterbirds, and long-term major adverse impacts to sea
turtles. Impacts to sea turtles and three species of colonial
waterbirds has the potential to raise to the level of
impairment, which would violate the Park Service Organic Act.
In addition, if the interim strategy was to be reinstated,
it would likely be counterproductive to visitor access. Many
popular destinations, such as Cape Point and the inland spits,
would still experience resource protection closures,
particularly when highly mobile piping plover and American
oystercatcher chicks are present. Several of the beach-nesting
bird species at the seashore may renest several times during
the same season if eggs or young chicks are lost. Under the
consent decree, with its science-based buffers, there has been
a noticeable reduction in the number of renesting attempts,
which means the duration of the closures are typically shorter.
No matter which management approach is in effect, the birds
will continue to attempt to nest at these sites, even if
resource protection is inadequate, because that is where the
most suitable habitat is located. The interim strategy would
allow for a higher level of human disturbance in proximity to
nests and chicks at these key sites, which increases the chance
that nests and young chicks will be lost, which in turn
increases the likelihood that birds will renest one or more
times at both sites. This could extend the length of time that
any particular site would be closed due to breeding activity,
even if the apparent size of the closure is smaller than that
under the ORV management plan or consent decree.
The Department opposes H.R. 4094 for several additional
reasons. These reasons are covered in my full written
statement.
Finally, I want to point out that the ORV management plan
and special regulation are the products of an intensive 5-year-
long planning process that included a high level of public
participation, both through the NEPA process and negotiated
rulemaking. It included four rounds of public comment
opportunities. The NPS received more than 15,000 individual
comments on the draft plan and more than 21,000 individual
comments on the proposed special regulation. In completing the
final plan and the special regulation, the NPS considered all
comments, weighing competing interests, and ensured compliance
with all applicable laws.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Frost follows:]
Statement of Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 4094, To Authorize Pedestrian and Motorized Vehicular
Access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, and for
Other Purposes
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 4094, a bill entitled ``to authorize
pedestrian and motorized vehicular access in Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreational Area, and for other purposes.''
The Department strongly opposes H.R. 4094. This bill would
reinstate the 2007 Interim Protected Species Management Strategy
(Interim Strategy) governing off-road vehicle (ORV) use at Cape
Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore). In response to a lawsuit
challenging its adequacy, the Interim Strategy was modified by a court-
approved Consent Decree on April 30, 2008. The Seashore was managed
under the Consent Decree through 2011. Meanwhile, the final ORV
Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and special
regulation went into effect on February 15, 2012.
The Department supports allowing appropriate public use and access
at the Seashore to the greatest extent possible, while also ensuring
protection for the Seashore's wildlife and providing a variety of
visitor use experiences, minimizing conflicts among various users, and
promoting the safety of all visitors. We strongly believe that the
final ORV management plan and special regulation will accomplish these
objectives far better than the defunct Interim Strategy.
The final ORV management plan for the first time provides long-term
guidance for the management of ORV use and the protection of affected
wildlife species at the Seashore. The plan is designed to not only
provide diverse visitor experience opportunities, manage ORV use in a
manner appropriate to a unit of the National Park System, and provide a
science-based approach to the conservation of protected wildlife
species, but also to adapt to changing conditions over the life-span of
the plan. It includes a five-year periodic review process that will
enable the NPS to systematically evaluate the plan's effectiveness and
make any necessary changes.
The Seashore's dynamic coastal processes create important habitats,
including breeding sites for many species of beach-nesting birds, among
them the federally listed threatened piping plover, the state-listed
threatened gull-billed tern, and a number of species of concern
including the common tern, least tern, black skimmer, and the American
oystercatcher. All of these species experienced declines in breeding
population at Cape Hatteras over the 10-20 years prior to the
implementation of the Consent Decree in 2008. For example, in 1989 the
Seashore had 15 breeding pairs of piping plovers; and by 2001-2005,
that number had dropped to only 2-3 pairs attempting to nest each year.
The numbers of colonial waterbird nests within the Seashore also
plummeted from 1,204 nests in 1999 to 320 nests in 2007.
Under the National Park Service Organic Act, the Endangered Species
Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Seashore's enabling act, and
National Park Service (NPS) regulations and policies, the NPS has an
affirmative responsibility to conserve and protect all of these
species, as well as the other resources and values of the Seashore.
Executive Order 11644 (1972), amended by Executive Order 11989 (1977),
requires the NPS to issue regulations to designate specific trails and
areas for ORV use based upon resource protection, visitor safety, and
minimization of conflicts among uses of agency lands. The regulation
that the NPS subsequently promulgated (36 C.F.R. Sec. 4.10) requires
the NPS to designate any routes or areas for ORV use by special
regulation and in compliance with Executive Order 11644.
The special regulation that went into effect on February 15 brings
the Seashore into compliance with that regulation and with the
Executive Orders and other applicable laws and policies, after many
years of non-compliance. In addition to resource impacts, the approved
plan addresses past inconsistent management of ORV use, user conflicts,
and safety concerns in a comprehensive and consistent manner.
The Interim Strategy was never intended to be in place over the
long-term. At the time it was developed, the Seashore had no consistent
approach to species protection and no ORV management plan or special
regulation in place. While the Interim Strategy took an initial step
toward establishing a science-based approach, key elements such as
buffer distances for American oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds,
and the lack of night driving restrictions during sea turtle nesting
season, were inconsistent with the best available science. The 2006
USFWS biological opinion for the Interim Strategy indicated that it
would cause adverse effects to federally listed species, but found no
jeopardy to those species mainly because of the limited duration of
implementation (expected to be no later than the end of 2009).
Similarly, the 2007 NPS Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for
the Interim Strategy indicated the action had the potential to
adversely impact federally listed species and state-listed species of
concern, but found that a more detailed analysis (an EIS) was not
needed because of the limited period of time that the Interim Strategy
would be implemented.
By contrast, the species-specific buffer distances and the night
driving restrictions contained in both the Consent Decree and in the
plan/EIS are based on scientific studies and peer-reviewed management
guidelines such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Piping
Plover and Loggerhead Turtle Recovery Plans, and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Open-File Report 2009-1262 (also referred to as the
``USGS protocols,'') on the management of species of special concern at
the Seashore. Buffer distances for state-listed species are based on
relevant scientific studies recommended by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, USFWS, and USGS.
Although breeding success depends on a number of factors, with the
measures in place under the Consent Decree, there has been a striking
improvement in the condition of protected beach-nesting wildlife
species. The Seashore has experienced a record number of piping plover
pairs and fledged chicks, American oystercatcher fledged chicks, least
tern nests, and improved nesting results for other species of colonial
waterbirds. The number of sea turtle nests also significantly
increased, from an annual average of 77.3 between 2000-2007 to an
average of 129 between 2008-2011. These improvements occurred even
though many miles of beach remained open, unaffected by species
protection measures, and Seashore visitation numbers remained stable.
During the preparation of the EIS for the management plan, the NPS
evaluated the potential environmental impacts of long-term
implementation of the Interim Strategy. The analysis determined that if
the Interim Strategy were continued into the future, it would result in
long-term, moderate to major adverse impacts to piping plovers,
American oystercatchers, and colonial waterbirds, and long-term, major
adverse impacts to sea turtles. Impacts to sea turtles and three
species of colonial waterbirds had the potential to rise to the level
of ``impairment,'' which would violate the National Park Service
Organic Act.
Because the number of nesting birds has increased significantly
since 2007, if the Interim Strategy were to be reinstated, it could be
counterproductive to visitor access. Many popular destinations, such as
Cape Point and the inlet spits, would still experience resource
protection closures, particularly when highly mobile piping plover and
American oystercatcher chicks are present. Several of the beach-nesting
bird species at the Seashore may renest several times during the same
season if eggs or very young chicks are lost. Under the Consent Decree,
with its science-based buffers, there has been a noticeable reduction
in the number of renesting attempts for piping plovers and American
oystercatchers, which means the duration of closures is typically
shorter. No matter which management approach is in effect, the birds
will continue to attempt to nest at these sites, even if resource
protection is inadequate, because that is where the most suitable
habitat is located. The Interim Strategy would allow a higher level of
human disturbance in proximity to nests and chicks at these key sites,
which increases the chances that nests and young chicks will be lost,
which in turn increases the likelihood that birds will renest one or
more time at those sites. This could extend the length of time that any
particular site would be closed due to breeding activity, even if the
apparent size of the closure is smaller than that under the ORV plan or
Consent Decree.
In addition to reinstating the Interim Strategy, H.R. 4094 provides
authority for additional restrictions only for species listed as
``endangered'' under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and only for
the shortest possible time and on the smallest possible portions of the
Seashore. This would conflict with numerous other laws and mandates
including the National Park Service Organic Act, the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, the Seashore's enabling act, the aforementioned Executive
Orders, and NPS regulations implementing these laws, which provide for
the protection of other migratory bird species and other park
resources.
H.R. 4094 also provides that the protection of endangered species
at Cape Hatteras shall not be greater than the restrictions in effect
for that species at any other national seashore. Species protection
measures cannot reasonably be compared from seashore to seashore
without considering the specific circumstances at each site and the
context provided by the number and variety of protected species
involved, the levels of ORV use, and the underlying restrictions
provided by the respective ORV management plans and special
regulations. Even though Cape Hatteras has a wider variety of beach
nesting wildlife species than Cape Cod or Assateague, for example, its
plan actually allows for a much higher level of ORV use on larger
portions of the Seashore. It would be neither reasonable nor
biologically sound for Cape Hatteras to use less protective measures if
they were designed for a location where the level of ORV use is much
lower to begin with. Nor does it appear that such an arbitrary approach
could possibly comply with the ``peer-reviewed science'' requirement
imposed elsewhere in the bill. The Cape Hatteras plan was specifically
designed to be effective for the circumstances at Cape Hatteras.
The bill would require, to the maximum extent possible, that
pedestrian and vehicle access corridors be provided around closures
implemented to protect wildlife nesting areas. This concept was
thoroughly considered during the preparation of the plan and EIS. The
plan already allows for such access corridors when not in conflict with
species protection measures. But because of the Seashore's typically
narrow beaches, and the concentrations of nests at the best available
habitat near the inlets and Cape Point, nesting areas are often close
to the shoreline, and access corridors cannot always be allowed without
defeating the fundamental purpose of such closures, which is to protect
beach-nesting wildlife. Several species of shorebirds that nest at the
Seashore have highly mobile chicks, which can move considerable
distances from nests to foraging sites. Inadequate resource closures in
the past have resulted in documented cases of human-caused loss or
abandonment of nests and chick fatalities. Corridors that cut through a
resource closure area would essentially undermine the function of the
closure and render it compromised or even useless.
Finally, the final ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation,
are the products of an intensive five-year long planning process that
included a high level of public participation through both the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and negotiated rulemaking,
including four rounds of public comment opportunities. The NPS received
more than 15,000 individual comments on the draft plan/EIS and more
than 21,000 individual comments on the proposed special regulation. In
completing the final ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation,
the NPS considered all comments, weighed competing interests and
ensured compliance with all applicable laws.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
______
Statement of Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on ``Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks''
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issue of access
to national parks, particularly with regard to the impact of management
plans on visitor access and local economies at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore and Biscayne National Park.
Providing for visitor enjoyment of our national parks is required
by the National Park Service Organic Act, along with the mandate to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects of our parks
unimpaired for future generations. They are areas where, in carrying
out the Organic Act and other laws, we are responsible for protecting
wildlife, ecosystems, water quality, and natural quiet; preserving our
nation's culture and history; educating visitors; and leaving a legacy
of our nation's natural and cultural heritage. For that reason, the
management plans for our parks that the National Park Service develops
need to carefully weigh competing requirements, needs, and desires,
particularly in terms of visitor use.
The two parks that are the subject of this hearing, Cape Hatteras
National Seashore (Seashore) and Biscayne National Park (Park), have
management plans--final and draft, respectively--that are seen by some
as curtailing access to these two popular and highly valued Atlantic
Coast parks. The off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan that was
implemented this year at the Seashore has been highly controversial
among both opponents and proponents of ORV restrictions. Similarly, the
proposed General Management Plan (GMP) at the Park is controversial
among opponents and proponents of the plan's proposed marine reserve
zone and non-combustion engine use zone. In both cases, the National
Park Service is acting to preserve and protect the natural resources
that are fundamental to the reason both of those areas are included in
the National Park System. These management plans are instruments that
will help us invest in the future viability of the wildlife and the
ecosystems of the two parks. Restricting a relatively modest amount of
use of these two parks now will help ensure that the public continues
to have access to these natural resources over the long run.
The National Park Service does not take lightly the imposition of
restrictions on activities that were more freely enjoyed in the past;
we understand the disappointment and loss new restrictions can
generate. We are also keenly aware of how important parks are to
gateway communities, and how changes in rules for recreational
activities can affect the well-being of businesses in those
communities. Our process for developing management plans includes
taking into consideration the views of all affected parties. This
public process helps us refine plans in ways that will minimize the
disruption to traditional uses and businesses built around those uses
while we act to comply with laws and regulations and balance competing
interests.
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Hatteras National Seashore stretches for about 67 miles along
three islands of the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The Seashore is
famous for its soft sandy beaches, its outstanding natural beauty, and
its seashore wildlife that inhabits the sand dunes, marshes, and
woodlands. Long a popular recreation destination, Cape Hatteras
attracts about 2.2 million visitors a year who come to walk the beach,
swim, sail, fish, and enjoy the ambiance of the shore. In the towns
that dot the Outer Banks, a major tourism industry has developed to
serve the visiting tourists and local beachgoers, including fishermen.
In 2010, visitors to the Seashore spent approximately $108 million,
which supported about 1,700 jobs.
We appreciate the long tradition and popularity of ORV use at Cape
Hatteras, which many anglers use to haul gear to popular fishing spots,
and the economic value that activity generates for the local
communities. However, ORV use at the Seashore was out of compliance
with laws and regulations for many years, and, after several efforts to
achieve compliance faltered, an ORV management plan and special
regulation for Cape Hatteras National Seashore were finally adopted on
February 15, 2012. This management plan is being implemented following
four years of management of the Seashore under a court-ordered Consent
Decree, which imposed new restrictions on ORV use and helped begin
reversing the decline of key seashore wildlife species.
Under the science-based species protection measures of the Consent
Decree, many of which are incorporated in the ORV management plan and
special regulation, there has been a significant trend of improving
conditions for beach nesting birds and sea turtles. During this period,
the Seashore experienced record numbers of piping plover breeding pairs
and fledged chicks, American oystercatcher fledged chicks, and least
tern nests, as well as improved nesting results for other species of
colonial waterbirds. Although a number of factors, including weather,
predation, habitat availability, and the level of human disturbance
ultimately affect shorebird and waterbird breeding success, under the
Consent Decree the science-based buffers effectively minimized human
disturbance of nesting areas at critical times during the breeding
cycle. The number of sea turtle nests in the Seashore also
significantly increased under the Consent Decree, which imposed a night
driving restriction for the first time. During 2008--2011, the Seashore
averaged 129 sea turtle nests annually, compared to an annual average
of 77.3 from 2000--2007.
Although the prescribed buffers have resulted in temporary closures
of some popular locations when breeding activity was occurring, even at
the peak of the breeding season there have generally been many miles of
open beach entirely unaffected by the species protection measures. And,
during this same period, annual visitation at the Seashore continued at
a level similar to that of 2006--2007. Dare County, where the Seashore
is located, experienced record occupancy tax revenues in 2010 and near-
record revenues in 2011, despite the impacts of Hurricane Irene that,
among other effects, closed North Carolina Highway 12 to Hatteras
Island from August 27 to October 10, 2011.
The ORV management plan and special regulation reflect the outcome
of a five-year long intensive public process that included a high level
of public participation through both the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process and negotiated rulemaking. In 2006, the National
Park Service began public scoping for the plan/EIS, and concurrent with
that process, established a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee
whose function was to assist directly in the development of special
regulations for management of ORVs. The committee, composed of 29
representatives of diverse interests, met eleven times, for a total of
20 meeting days, between January 2007 and February 2009. There were
also numerous subcommittee meetings on a number of issues such as
agenda planning; natural resources; permits, passes and fees; routes
and areas; socio-economic analysis; vehicle characteristics and
operations; and village beaches. Although the committee did not reach
consensus on a proposed regulation, it provided a valuable forum for
the discussion of a wide variety of ORV management and resource
protection issues and generated a large volume of useful information
for the NPS.
During the NEPA and rulemaking processes, the NPS also provided
four rounds of public comment opportunities. The NPS received more than
15,000 individual comments on the draft plan/EIS and more than 21,000
individual comments on the proposed special regulation. The views of
those who wanted less restrictive measures than the proposed plan
called for were fully considered along with the views of those who
wanted more restrictive measures. Currently, the ORV management plan
and special regulation are the subject of a complaint that was filed by
a coalition of ORV organizations with the U.S. District Court in the
District of Columbia on February 9, 2012.
Biscayne National Park
Biscayne National Park, located south of Miami, has over 151,000
acres of marine and estuarine waters, which make up about 95 percent of
the park. Its coral reef is its signature feature. Some of the park's
half-million annual visitors come just to enjoy the scenery and picnic,
but the main attraction is the opportunity for water recreation--
swimming, snorkelling diving, boating, and fishing. Economic data
suggest that Biscayne National Park supports more than 400 local jobs.
The process to develop a new GMP to update the park's 1983 plan
began in 2000. Public meetings were held in 2001, 2009, and 2011. A
preferred alternative, Alternative Four, was chosen in 2010. During the
public comment period in 2011, more than 18,000 public comments were
received and more than 300 people attended public meetings. The
National Park Service is currently analyzing the public comments and
expects to finalize the GMP by the end of this year.
Two of the proposals in Alternative Four have generated significant
interest and controversy: one is the proposed establishment of a marine
reserve zone (MRZ), which would be a no-take area, where fishing of any
kind would be prohibited. The other is the proposed establishment of
non-combustion engine use zones.
The proposal for a MRZ is intended to allow a portion of the coral
reef a reprieve to recover its health and to offer visitors the
opportunity to see an intact and unfished coral reef system. Coral
reefs contain some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world, forming
important habitat for thousands of corals, algae, fish, and other
marine organisms. They also serve as natural areas for recreation,
boost the marine tourism economy, support recreational and commercial
fisheries, protect coastlines from storm damage, and function as rich
warehouses for genetic and species diversity.
Coral reefs are in decline worldwide and Biscayne's reef is part of
that trend. Peer-reviewed studies from the National Park Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Miami-Dade County, the University of Miami, the University of South
Florida, the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, and others have
consistently detailed the loss of biological integrity of the park's
coral reef. The studies show that the reef's coral and fish resources
are greatly diminished from previous years. They also document a clear
relationship between healthy fish populations and healthy reef
ecosystems--coral reefs need healthy fish. Biscayne's reef shows
dramatic losses of living coral, from approximately 28 percent coverage
three decades ago to only five to seven percent today. Fish populations
in the park have been declining for years, with 64 percent of species
observed less frequently in 2006-2007 than in the late 1970s and early
1980s. Some species have disappeared from the park completely.
Marine scientists the world over agree that the most effective tool
for marine ecosystem repair is a MRZ. Other tools can be effective for
maintaining sustainable fish populations, but the National Park Service
mission is different than merely achieving sustainable fisheries.
Natural coral reef ecosystems contain the full size and age spectrum of
all the species found in them. Fishing size limits, slot limits, and
bag limits cannot achieve the goal of ecosystem repair. Temporary
closures produce short-term growth but not long-term population
enhancement. Catch and release is an effective tool for shallow water
species but has proven to be far less successful with reef species.
Areas where fish are not harvested also provide important
recreational opportunities. Snorkeling and diving a healthy and vibrant
coral reef, full of large fish and brilliant corals, are activities
that many people find enjoyable and educational. MRZs are also good
investments in tourism: areas that consistently contain large numbers
of big fish, such as grouper and snapper, attract greater numbers of
scuba divers, snorkelers, and others interested in seeing beautiful
fish in their natural habitat. In MRZs, large fish often swim right up
to snorkelers and divers, providing an experience unmatched in other
places. By allowing Biscayne's reef ecosystem to recover, the proposed
marine reserve zone could make the park one of South Florida's premier
tourist destinations for divers, snorkelers, and marine enthusiasts.
The draft GMP's preferred alternative would set aside seven percent
of the park's waters as a marine reserve zone for this unparalleled
recreation opportunity. The remaining 151,000 acres, or 93 percent of
park waters, including 70 percent of the park's reef tract, would
remain open to fishing. The park carefully considered many factors in
determining the location and size of the marine reserve zone. Those
factors included the sea floor habitat and habitat connectivity, living
coral cover, type of reef, shipwrecks, and minimization of impacts on
other users.
The proposed marine reserve zone has significant public support. In
reviewing the more than 18,000 public comments on the Park's draft GMP,
our initial analysis indicates that more than 90 percent of the
comments support alternatives containing a marine reserve zone.
While the purpose of this marine reserve zone is for resource
restoration and enhanced visitor experiences, not fishery management,
numerous studies show that marine reserve zones are also good
investments in fisheries. Research has shown that within a few years of
establishing a zone, ``spillover'' from fish swimming out of the zone
will benefit fishing in surrounding waters. As fish in a zone become
larger and more prolific, many will eventually swim out, leading to
greater catches in areas adjacent to the zone. Most large ``trophy''
fish caught in Florida are taken adjacent to closed no-take areas.
The other issue that has attracted heightened interest in the GMP
is the proposal to establish non-combustion engine use zones. These
areas, commonly known as ``pole and troll'' zones, are needed to
protect fragile resources along portions of the mainland shoreline
adjacent to impenetrable mangrove forests, in shallow seagrass areas,
and near bird rookeries. These zones are fairly small and are in the
extremely shallow waters (less than 2-1/2 feet deep), which prudent
boaters would not motor across anyway. Many fishermen specifically
requested these no-motor zones in the areas where they are proposed
under Alternative Four. The zones will not prevent anyone from entering
or using the park, and there are no areas proposed for non-combustion
engine use zones that would prevent visitors from launching motorized
boats.
At both Biscayne and Cape Hatteras, the National Park Service is
committed to providing for everyone's enjoyment of the parks' resources
to the greatest extent possible, while ensuring protection of those
resources, now and in the future. We believe that continued
implementation of the current long-term ORV management plan and special
regulation at Cape Hatteras, and the GMP for Biscayne, once finalized
after consideration of public comments, will, over the long term,
provide the best course to serve the varied interests of the both parks
while meeting the National Park Service's resource protection
responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Now we will turn to Mr. Couch, who will be
testifying on 4094, if you would, please. I am sorry, I am
dyslexic here. We will turn to Mr. Judge, who is next on the
row here. I think you are also on 4094, and then Mr. Couch. I
apologize for that.
Mr. Judge, please.
STATEMENT OF WARREN JUDGE, CHAIRMAN, DARE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, DARE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Judge. No apology needed, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and members of the Committee. I
appreciate this opportunity to be here today on behalf of the 6
million people who visit Dare County every year, the 33,000
people who call it their home, and the 50,000 daily visitors
inside the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
each day during the summer season.
As Chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, I
would like to share with you firsthand reports of the impact
that increased beach access restrictions have had on our area
and the grim future our businesses face under the newly enacted
ORV rule of the National Park Service.
Small businesses are the economic backbone of Dare County.
Hardworking men and women have for generations created jobs and
sustained economic growth for our area by offering outstanding
service and hospitality to those who travel from around the
Nation to enjoy our family oriented beaches and rich heritage
of historical and cultural attractions.
Tourism is our primary industry. It is the engine that
drives our economy. There are no corporate headquarters in Dare
County. We do not have technology corridors or factories to
provide employment. What we do have are industrious people who
ask only for a fair opportunity to earn their part of the
American dream.
That dream has been marred for many small-business owners
who have dedicated their lives to serving those who visit the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. This group
includes hundreds of grassroots entrepreneurs who operate
restaurants, gift shops, motels, cottages, fishing tackle
stores, and all the mom-and-pop businesses that provide the
necessary infrastructure to support our visitors. Since the
consent decree was enacted in the spring of 2008, these people
have suffered.
People like Frank Folb, who for over 25 years has operated
a popular fishing tackle business on Hatteras Island in the
village of Avon. He has seen a drop in revenue directly related
to restricted beach access. In the first year alone of the
consent decree, he suffered a 20 percent decrease, which has
taken a harsh toll on his employees and their families.
John Couch, who you will hear from in a minute, another
small-business owner, is near the entrance to the Cape Hatteras
Lighthouse and the popular Cape Point fishing destination. He
has carefully documented that when access is denied, his
business goes down. Like many, he has witnessed that it is a
cause-and-effect relationship, and he has experienced the pain.
Another business owner who had the rug pulled out from
beneath him by the consent decree is Bob Eakes. He was forced
to lay off one-third of his workforce. And in order to survive,
he also had to use funds set aside for his son's education.
These people represent a community that has already
suffered enough. Unfortunately, we now face a future that holds
more economic insecurity under the newly enacted ORV rule.
Sadly, it imposes even greater restrictions than we have
endured under the consent decree. The ORV rule is a flawed
approach to balancing reasonable recreation access with
resource protection.
That is why I am reaching out to you today for your support
of H.R. 4094. This legislation would reinstate the interim
management plan, a proven approach that has worked with
success, a plan fully vetted with much public input that the
Park Service found to be accurate in 2007.
Dare County supports science-based resource management and
believes this can best be achieved through H.R. 4094. It will
allow the superintendent to make timely and practical
adjustments that are in direct response to the actual
conditions that are occurring at the seashore on a realtime
basis. Under 4094, the superintendent will use his professional
experience and his expertise to manage the seashore, rather
than the rigid and unbending parameters of the existing ORV
rule. Access decisions will be made by a park superintendent
who is ultimately accountable to Congress rather than the
courts or a rigid, arbitrary, flawed ORV plan.
H.R. 4094 is good for the resources that are being
protected, and it is good for the people. It represents a true
win-win situation.
No one is more committed to preserving a solid long-term
ecological future for the beaches of the Outer Banks than the
people of Dare County. For generations, our community has been
on the vanguard of sustaining the natural resources for our
children and our grandchildren to enjoy. I respectfully ask you
to help us preserve our culture and our history and our way of
life by enacting H.R. 4094.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I just want to
say one more thing. When this happens in Dare County, in the
Cape Hatteras seashore, and if it is allowed to continue to
happen, it will spread down the coastline of North Carolina, up
and down the East Coast of the United States and across this
great country of ours, touching every public park, national
park, and area.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your concern. You don't
want to be treated like we in the West are treated by them.
Mr. Judge. Yes, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Judge follows:]
Statement of Warren Judge, Chairman, Dare County Board of
Commissioners, County of Dare, North Carolina, on H.R. 4094, To
authorize pedestrian and motorized vehicular access in the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
Dare County North Carolina, known as the Outer Banks, is home to
the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. Most of the
seashore is within Dare County, with a portion in Ocracoke being
located in neighboring Hyde County.
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area (CHNSRA) was
established as America's first national seashore with the promise that
this unique area would always have recreational access for the people.
The people of Dare County have cooperated with the National Park
Service in developing America's seashore into a popular attraction with
cultural and historical significance. At the urging of the National
Park Service, people built businesses and infrastructure to support and
promote tourism to the area. For generations the area flourished and
the area became a popular tourism destination because of its world-
class fishing and a host of family-oriented recreational activities.
The County of Dare through its elected leaders, and in concert with
grassroots community partners, has actively participated in every phase
of the Federal Government's planning and rulemaking process.
We advocated for the ``Interim Management Strategy'' and
participated in the negotiated rulemaking process. We also engaged in
Public Hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
Final Environmental Impact Statement, (FEIS) and ORV Management Plan.
We, and others, offered practical solutions that would satisfy the
concerns required by Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 without
compromising the area's unique culture and economy.
The National Park Service's ORV Management Plan, and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement upon which it is based, are seriously
flawed. It lacks a sound scientific basis and reflects a distorted
economic analysis. It also does not reflect the will of the people that
was articulately expressed during public hearings.
Throughout the public process, there was an outpouring of positive
and substantive comments by the people of Dare County. Thousands of
others, from across the nation, who love the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreational Area, joined us in this effort.
We, the people, spoke as a virtually unanimous voice in
recommending practical solutions for management of the seashore.
However, the National Park Service did not listen to the clearly
expressed will of the people and incorporate our concerns and
suggestions.
It has been our longstanding position that people and wildlife can
live in harmony and that reasonable recreational access is consistent
with proper resource management. For decades, we have maintained that
meaningful access is fundamental to the visitor experience and the
continued growth and economic vitality of the Outer Banks.
Following are the specific areas of concern that we have identified
for the seashore. We seek relief through passage of H.R. 4094, which
would reinstate the Interim Management Plan for the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area.
NO FEES for ORV permits
TRAINING & PERMITS available online and at multiple
locations with convenient hours
NEW INFRASTRUCTURE should be established before new
corridors & VFA's
FLEXIBILITY FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT to adapt corridors
and routes
SEASONAL VILLAGE CLOSURES based on conditions not
arbitrary dates
ROUTES that recognize established patterns of
historical use
CORRIDORS to provide access through & around areas of
resource closures
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS for safe
access to all areas of the seashore
PREDATOR REMOVAL PROGRAM that destroys hundreds of
mammals each year to protect a few selected species
NO FEES FOR ORV PERMITS
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area rightly
belongs to the American people. For generations, families have depended
on access to the seashore for recreation. This access has historically
been provided at no cost for the residents and visitors of the CHNSRA.
Families plan all year long to visit Cape Hatteras. They save
diligently in order to afford a destination where an American family
can still enjoy a wholesome recreational experience at a reasonable
price. This budgetary dynamic is a crucial one for the working people
that frequent the CHNSRA. For these visitors, adding a fee to access
the beach is akin to charging a fee to breathe the air.
Instituting fees for use of the CHNSRA threatens to hurt tourism
and adversely affect the visitor experience. This applies not only to
the National Park Service properties on the Outer Banks, but to the
overall tourism-based economy on which Dare County depends.
User fees disproportionately affect those on fixed incomes, single
parents, low-income visitors, and minorities. A $120 user fee for
someone earning the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is more greatly
affected than someone earning an upper class income. We believe high
user fees favor the rich and privileged over the poor and working
middle class families that depend on free access to the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area.
The yearly and weekly fees, as imposed by the National Park
Service, are excessively high and make no provision for the many who
visit the seashore for a length of stay of less than one week. By
ignoring the needs of those who make day trips and weekend excursions
to the Outer Banks, the Park Service further impairs the visitor
experience.
TRAINING & PERMITS available online and at multiple locations with
convenient hours
The American public and the visitors to the CHNSRA have responded
well to educational efforts done by a variety of user groups and the
County of Dare. Our residents and visitors have a long-standing
position of promoting and supporting responsible stewardship of the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
While additional education and training is desirable in any
endeavor, we believe that requiring mandated training prior to the
issuance of a permit is unwarranted in this case because of the
effective job that has been done to promote and sustain reasonable use
of the CHNSRA.
If NPS continues to impose a training requirement, over our
objection, then the following practical issues must be considered:
Training and Permits Must Be Available Online
Visitors to the CHNSRA generally have one (1) week in which to
pack in as much vacation as possible. Visitors to the Outer
Banks most frequently arrive on Saturday afternoon and stay
through the calendar week.
This pattern sets in place a weekly cycle that will choke the
resources of NPS in handling a long line of incoming visitors
each Saturday. Furthermore, the NPS permit office needs to be
open well into the evening hours in order to accommodate those
traveling tremendous distances to reach Dare County.
NEW INFRASTRUCTURE should be established before new corridors & VFA's
NPS proposes new infrastructure for parking, ramps and access that
should be implemented prior to the new routes, corridors and vehicle
free areas (VFA's) that are outlined in the ORV Management Plan.
Vehicle free areas (VFA's) will require additional off beach
parking for those who want to be pedestrians within the new VFA's.
To impose new guidelines without the support system in place will
only impede and restrict access and risk further harm to the visitor
experience.
FLEXIBILITY FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT to adapt corridors and routes
The County of Dare has long supported giving flexibility to the
Superintendent of the CHNSRA to use his or her best professional
judgment in adapting corridors and routes as the physical nature and
characteristics of the beach change on a dynamic basis. This common
sense approach allows the Superintendent to modify access based upon
the changing conditions that exist at the time, rather than arbitrarily
written mandates.
For example, when buffers are established to protect a resource,
once the species have begun moving from the nesting area, the
Superintendent could monitor and modify the established buffer on an
on-going basis. This would ultimately provide more dynamic and
effective resource protection, while at the same time providing more
access. This represents a win-win situation for both protected
resources and the American public.
Also, as the landscape of the seashore changes due to weather and
tide conditions the natural environment of the area changes as well.
These changes can best be assessed, analyzed and adjusted as needed by
the Superintendent. We believe the Superintendents of the CHNSRA,
including the current one, are dedicated professionals with the ability
and experience to manage the seashore in a responsible way.
Dare County has long supported giving flexibility to the
Superintendent. This was a fundamental principle in our participation
in the drafting of early guidelines for the seashore including the
Interim Management Strategy. Providing this flexibility for the
Superintendent was a keystone of our position throughout the negotiated
rulemaking process, the public hearings on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), and comments on the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS).
NPS needs to trust and empower its Superintendent to adapt and
alter corridors and routes.
SEASONAL VILLAGE CLOSURES based on conditions not arbitrary dates
Seasonal closures, in front of Hatteras Island Villages, should be
based and depend on the season rather than arbitrary dates. This can be
effectively developed, on an annual basis, by the Superintendent in
partnership with officials from Dare and Hyde Counties.
We believe that the seasonal closings of Village beaches has not
been a problem that warrants the arbitrary and inconsistent dates
outlined in the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) upon which
the ORV Management Plan was written.
ROUTES
The ORV Routes outlined in the ORV Management Plan have
shortcomings that will significantly impair the visitor experience for
the majority who visit the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational
Area. Eleven historically recognized routes have been excluded. These
crucial areas should be revised to allow an adaptive management process
that would reopen these closure areas.
CORRIDORS
Corridors are a vital tool in providing access while managing
resources. The National Park Service should incorporate the use of
corridors through and around buffers so the public does not suffer
restricted access to an otherwise open area.
Corridors effectively provide a small path around temporary
resource closures in order to provide access to open areas that would
otherwise be blocked. Corridors allow visitor access to an open area
that may be sandwiched between two closed areas. These corridors have
limited negative impacts to the protected species, but they are crucial
to providing access during closures periods.
In some instances, corridors can be made through or around closure
areas. In other places, corridors can be established below the high
tide line. Since unfledged chicks are not found in nests between the
ocean and the high tide line, this type of pass through corridor would
have no negative effect on wildlife and should be established
throughout the seashore.
In the example below, the visitors intended recreational area would
be accessible through a small pass through corridor. Without this
corridor, the area marked ``Open'' would actually be closed because it
would otherwise be impossible to get there.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsCorridors are vital to providing access in a way that does not
hinder resource protection. Therefore, Dare County believes pass
through corridors should be maintained for pedestrians and ORVs in all
areas of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
throughout the entire breeding and nesting season.
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS for safe access to all areas of
the seashore
It is crucial that mobility impaired persons have free and open
access to all areas of the seashore. It is fundamentally unfair that
they be restricted to the areas directly in front of the villages as is
now provided in the ORV Management Plan.
Restricting access for the large number of handicapped visitors who
frequent the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area is a
serious safety issue. Mobility impaired visitors depend upon their
vehicle not only for transportation to the seashore, but as a necessary
lifeline in the event of a medical emergency, a sudden change of
weather or temperature conditions, or need for toilet facilities.
Our mobility-impaired community includes those using wheelchairs,
walkers, and canes. It also includes elderly visitors, many of whom are
frail. Additionally, those coping with chronic medical needs could be
hurt and caused to suffer. For example, visitors who need the
continuous administration of oxygen would benefit from having their
vehicle nearby as an energy-generating source for their oxygen supply
system.
PREDATOR REMOVAL PROGRAM
People who love animals are shocked when they discover that the
National Park Service has an on-going program to trap and kill hundreds
of mammals each year in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreational Area. In an attempt to protect a few species of
shorebirds, the Department of the Interior has decided to trap and kill
their natural predators.
This controversial program, euphemistically called ``Predator
Removal,'' involves a small number of federally designated species,
including the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), as well as some non-
federally listed shorebirds. However, none of the protected birds are
classified as endangered, yet their natural predators are systemically
trapped and killed.
The mammals targeted for annihilation include Raccoon, Otter, Fox,
Mink, Opossum, Muskrat and Nutria. Sadly, none of the special interest
groups, who claim to defend wildlife, have raised their voice as
advocates for the hundreds of mammals that have been systematically
murdered each year.
Dare County Commissioner, Jack Shea in an Op-Ed article wrote,
``The environmentalists claim they want to protect wildlife, especially
the innocent baby birds. But, what happens to the innocent baby
raccoons, fox and mink whose murdered mother will never return home to
the den?'' He asks a series of probing Questions, ``Is the life of one
species more precious than others? If so, who decides? Where is the
outrage? Why do the ``environmentalists'' not advocate protection for
all species? Why have they not raised their voice in defense of these
slaughtered mammals?'' He concludes, ``Perhaps their silence reveals
the pragmatic truth that the greatest threat to birds and turtles is
from natural predators, not humans Instead, they loudly condemn
recreational access while touting a party line that tries to make
humans the villain.''
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The National Park Service in preparing its ORV Management Plan has
made false, misleading and deceptive statements that warrant comment.
We offer these additional comments in order to establish a clear and
consistent record that reflects the position of Dare County -
NPS said in its summary of the proposed ORV rule--
``minimizing conflicts among various users.'' In this comment,
and in others like it, NPS would have everyone believe that the
people who use the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation
Area are in conflict with each other. We find this not to be
true.
It is our experience that those who favor responsible ORV
access, which represents the overwhelming majority, have taken
great strides to accommodate the few who disagree.
We believe there is something for everyone at America's
first national seashore and have a documented track record of
willingness to compromise and accommodate the needs of all user
groups. This is a matter of public record during the negotiated
rulemaking proceeding, of which Dare County was a participant.
The Piping Plover was described by the National Park
Service as ``listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).''
NPS in this brief statement omits to give the American people
the full truth about the species that prevents access to the
most popular portions of the seashore for most of the tourism
season.
The Piping Plover is a non-indigenous ``threatened'' species
that is not ``endangered.'' Words have meaning. NPS has chosen
to describe this bird in a way that creates a false and
misleading impression to the American people.
NPS stated that, ``A consent decree agreed to by the
plaintiffs, the NPS, and the interveners, Dare and Hyde
counties.''
Here again, the National Park Service makes a statement that
warrants additional comment to clearly reflect our position.
The County of Dare did in fact join as an intervener in the
consent decree. However, NPS fails to disclose that our
involvement was as a matter of practical necessity in order to
best represent the people of Dare County.
The Consent Decree, prepared by a few special interest
groups behind closed doors, was never exposed to the light of
public comment and review.
We entered the case as an intervener rather than risk
letting the special interest groups and a sympathetic Federal
Judge close the seashore entirely. It was a situation where we
had to choose the lesser of two evils. As Dare County Vice-
Chairman Allen Burrus asked, ``Do we choose to get shot in the
foot, or in the head?''
Although Dare County was a party to the Consent Decree as an
intervener, for NPS to imply that Dare County was in any way in
agreement with the Consent Decree is disingenuous.
The National Park Service claimed it conducted a
``small business survey.'' However, the work, which was done by
contractor RTI, was never concluded or published prior to the
close of public comments on the Environmental Impact
Statements. This prevented the public from having access to the
survey and being able to make informed comments about it.
Following the eventual release of the small business survey,
we determined it was based upon a small sample size with a poor
rate of return. The skewed results of this survey stand in
stark contrast to sworn, notarized statements from business
owners that were submitted by Dare County during the public
comment process. Our survey of business owners documents a
consistent pattern of how the Consent Decree has hurt small
businesses.
Finally, we challenge the NPS conclusion in saying
that the economic impact of the ORV rule: ``will not adversely
affect in a material way the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety or
State, local, or Tribal governments or communities.''
The National Park Service has dismissed and ignored the
concerns of the local business community. The hard-working
small business owners of Dare County have indeed suffered harm
and will continue to do so under the ORV Management Plan.
NPS may take comfort in saying the negative impact will not
be harmful in a ``material way.'' This statement is untrue and
insensitive to those in our community who have seen their
savings depleted, businesses ruined and have had to lay-off
valuable, long-term employees.
The negative impact for our businesses has been already been
severe and profound. If the ORV Management Plan is allowed to
continue, it will cause even more harm to our fragile economy.
NPS is out of touch with the local business community and
insensitive to their needs and concerns.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
In his remarks to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
Public Lands, Dare County Chairman Warren Judge referenced comments
made by several Hatteras Island business owners. These remarks are
representative of the harm that has been done to Dare County business
owners by restricting visitor access to the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreational Area.
Family-owned businesses are the backbone of Dare County. Hard
working, local families have for generations provided employment
opportunities for the community, and offered outstanding service and
hospitality to Outer Banks visitors.
These small business owners do not ask for special favors or
government handouts, just a fair opportunity to earn their part of the
American dream.
Unfortunately, the consent decree has had a devastating and unfair
impact on many Dare County businesses.
The consent decree has taken a heavy toll on a wide range of
business types including--automotive parts & repair, bait & tackle
shops, campgrounds, charitable service providers, child care centers,
fishing rod builders, marinas, motels and cottages, professional
artists, restaurants, and retail shops.
Even businesses whose revenue has stayed level or showed a modest
increase have accomplished this at a costly price. Many have had to cut
back employee hours, forego much-needed capital improvements, and
sacrifice profits.
CONCLUSION
H.R. 4094 represents sound legislation for that will benefit the
residents and visitors of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreational Area.
The people of Dare County have already suffered enough. Now we face
even further economic insecurity under the newly enacted ORV Rule,
which imposes greater restrictions than the consent decree.
No one is more committed to preserving a solid, long-term,
ecological future for the beaches of the Outer Banks than the people of
Dare County. For generations our community has been on the vanguard of
sustaining the natural resources in order to preserve them for our
children and grandchildren to enjoy.
Dare County supports science-based resource management and believes
a careful balance between protection and access is provided in the
Interim Management Strategy that would be reinstituted upon passage of
H.R. 4094.
H.R. 4094 would allow access decisions to be made by the Park
Superintendent, who is ultimately accountable to Congress, rather than
the courts or a rigid and flawed ORV Management Plan.
On behalf of the residents and visitors of Dare County North
Carolina, we respectfully ask you to help us preserve our culture, our
history, and our way of life by supporting H.R. 4094.
Respectfully submitted
______
Mr. Bishop. All right, Mr. Couch, your turn.
STATEMENT OF JOHN COUCH, PRESIDENT, OUTER BANKS PRESERVATION
ASSOCIATION, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Couch. Mr. Chairman, Committee members, Congressman
Jones, thank you for the invitation to speak on this important
piece of legislation.
My name is John Couch. I am a businessman with two ongoing
businesses in the village of Buxton. I represent the Outer
Banks Preservation Association, an advocate for free and open
beach access. Our motto has always been, ``Preserve and
protect, not prohibit.''
The rule instituted by the National Park Service has
effectively taken the Nation's first national seashore
designated by Congress to be a recreational area and turned it
into a wildlife refuge without congressional authorization.
This will forever diminish the visitors' experience in ways
unintended by the enabling Act.
H.R. 4094 will restore access and ensure that the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area will be managed as
intended, for recreation. It will also ensure that recreation
will coexist with resource protection.
The authors of the final rule strayed in their efforts.
Their assessment of the visitor experience and the local
economy is flawed. The guidelines and instruction provided by
4094 address this.
Visitors come to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to
participate in shore-based recreational activities. The range
of family oriented activities includes swimming, fishing,
lighthouse climbing, bird watching, surfing, kite boarding, and
appeal to a wide cross-section of the American public.
Regardless of the activity, almost all recreational
opportunities occur on the beach, and these activities share a
common need: the need to access the beach with gear in hand.
Traditionally, beachgoers at Cape Hatteras have benefited from
open access that predates the seashore.
Our visitors have always understood that the value of the
ORV is to transport family, friends, and equipment to the
perfect, otherwise inaccessible location. Our enjoyment comes
from the access, not from joyriding. Most beaches closed to ORV
access are effectively closed to pedestrian access, where,
without the means to transport family, children, elderly, and
gear, the beach is inaccessible.
The rule has permanently closed an additional 19 miles of
beach to ORV access that has traditionally been available. And
in these areas, only narrow strips of beach near parking lots
are being used by walking visitors. The rule limits over 19
miles of beach to ORV access to winter months only, when
recreational opportunities are limited at best. The rule
suggests 29 miles of beach are open year-round to access by
ORV. In truth, temporary resource protection closures for non-
threatened or endangered species have already prevented both
ORV and pedestrian access to most of these miles.
Easter this year, 70 percent of ocean front between the top
of the seashore to the end of Ocracoke Island was closed to ORV
access. Easter found many visitors voicing their dismay and
frustration, wondering who is responsible, and many vowing not
to return. Temporary closures already implemented at Easter due
to one piping plover, threatened species, three oystercatcher
nests, not threatened or endangered, have taken 8 1/2 miles
away from visitors. By Memorial Day and the start of the peak
tourist season, beaches accessible by ORVs will likely be less
than 10 miles and will remain that level until the end of
August.
Other surprises await our visitors. They will find that the
short expanse of beach that they can access by ORVs must be
vacated by 9 o'clock at night. No more beach bonfires or late-
night or late-evening picnics. They will find no morning access
for sunrise viewing or early morning fishing. And, finally, the
visitor will learn that the significantly reduced access comes
at a price of $120 for an annual permit, $50 for a weekly
permit, with no daily pass for short-term visitors.
The National Park Service concluded that the impact of the
rule on visitor experience is long-term moderate to major and
adverse to ORV users and long-term beneficial to visitors who
desire a vehicle-free beach experience. The Service does not
point out that the vast majority of our visitors are ORV users
and the majority of those that are not indifferent to ORV
access, and that the visitors desiring a vehicle-free beach
experience had many ORV miles available prior to the rule.
The negative visitor experience as a result of the rule is
directly responsible for the economic impact felt in the eight
villages that lie within the seashore. For a tourist-based
economy, the math is simple: no visitors, no business.
When the Department of the Interior and the National Park
Service courted the original property owners to join in the
creation of the seashore, they quickly pointed out the
financial gains that would be enjoyed through the development
of visitor services. With more than a bit of initial hesitancy
and suspicion, the villagers donated or sold their land,
accepted the Park Service's encouragement, and built the
infrastructure to support tourism. Today, all businesses on
Hatteras Island are directly driven by tourism.
Visitation has suffered for the past 5 years due to access
closures implemented by the consent decree. Fall visitation,
always threatened by the possibility of storms and hurricanes,
will now suffer due to new permanent management closures and
procedures under the final rule.
Seven hundred twenty-three businesses, 3,117 weekly rental
properties, and 225 charter boats are found on Hatteras and
Ocracoke Islands. All directly, indirectly exist for the
tourist business.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Couch, if I could ask you to give one
closing statement, sentence.
Mr. Couch. Thank you.
I urge you to support the residents and the visitors of the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area by passing
H.R. 4094.
Mr. Bishop. Good closing sentence. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Couch. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Couch follows:]
Statement of John Couch, President,
Outer Banks Preservation Association, on H.R. 4094
Mr. Chairman, committee members, Congressman Jones;
Thank you for the invitation to speak on this important piece of
legislation.
My name is John Couch. I have lived and worked on the Outer Banks
since my childhood in the 50's when my father brought our family to
Hatteras Island. I am also a businessman with two ongoing businesses in
the village of Buxton. I represent the Outer Banks Preservation
Association, which was formed in the 1970's to be an advocate for free
and open beach access at Cape Hatteras for visitors and residents
alike. Our motto is, and has always been Preserve and Protect, Not
Prohibit.
The rule instituted by the National Park Service on February 15th
has effectively taken the nation's first national seashore designated
by Congress to be a ``recreational area'' and turned it into a wildlife
refuge without congressional authorization. This will forever diminish
the visitor experience in ways unintended by the enabling act.
H.R. 4094 will restore access and ensure that the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area will be used as intended, and as it
has been used for generations--for Recreation. It will also ensure that
recreation can co-exist with resource protection which is important to
all National Parks, Seashores and Recreational Areas.
The authors of the Final Rule strayed in their efforts. Their
assessment of the environmental impact of the rule in two significant
areas--the visitor experience, and the local economy--is flawed. The
guidelines and instruction provided by H.R. 4094 addresses these flaws.
Visitor Experience
The primary reason visitors come to Cape Hatteras is to participate
in shore-based recreational activities. A range of family oriented
activities, including swimming, fishing, lighthouse climbing, bird
watching and more strenuous activities such as surfing and kite-
boarding, appeal to a wide cross-section of the American public.
Regardless of the activity, virtually all of the recreational
opportunities occur on the beach. That is what brings visitors to the
Hatteras seashore--Access to Recreational Activities on the Beach. And
these reasons for access share a common need--the need for beach access
with gear in hand.
Traditionally, beach goers at Cape Hatteras have benefitted from
open access dating back to before the Seashore was established. The
faulty visions some have of dune buggies racing down the beach, jumping
dunes and cutting donuts are far from reality at the Seashore. Visitors
here have always understood that the value of the ORV is to transport
family, friends and equipment to the perfect spot on the beach that
would otherwise be inaccessible. Our enjoyment comes from access, not
from joy-riding.
To most visitors, beaches closed to ORV access are effectively
closed to pedestrian access, for without the means to transport family,
children, elderly and gear, the beach is inaccessible.
The extent to which the Rule restricts ORV and other use of the
Seashore is substantial.
The Rule has permanently closed an additional 19 miles of beach to
ORV access that has traditionally been available, and in these areas
only narrow strips of beach near parking lots are being used by
pedestrian visitors.
The Rule limits 19.1 miles of beach to ORV access to winter months
only, when recreational opportunities are limited at best. Prior to the
Rule, these beaches were accessible by ORV in the spring, winter and
fall by visitors who scheduled their trips expecting this availability.
The Rule claims 29 miles of beach are open year round to access by
ORV. In truth, temporary resource protection closures for non-
threatened or endangered species have already prevented both ORV and
pedestrian access to most of these miles during the height of our
seasons.
At Easter, this year, 70% of oceanfront between the top of the
Seashore and the end of Ocracoke Island was closed to access by ORV.
Some of this area, such as the 12 miles of the Pea Island National
Wildlife Refuge, is understandably closed permanently to access by ORV.
However, temporary closures already implemented at Easter, due to one
piping plover (threatened) and three oystercatcher nests (not
threatened or endangered) have already taken an additional 8.5 miles
away from visitors. By Memorial Day and the start of the peak tourist
season, beaches accessible by ORV will likely be less than 10 miles,
and will remain at that level until August.
Visitors also will encounter other surprises when they arrive. They
will find that the short expanse of beach they can access by ORV must
be vacated by 9:00 pm. No more beach bonfires or late evening picnics.
They will find no morning access until 7:00 am, even though any good
fisherman knows the morning bite will begin 30 minutes before sunrise
and end long before they can get to their spot. And finally, the
visitor will learn that the significantly reduced access they now have
comes at a price of $120 for an annual permit, $50 for a weekly permit,
and no daily pass for short term visitors.
Easter found many visitors at restaurants, motels, realty
companies, grocery stores, gift and tackle shops voicing their dismay
and frustration, wondering who is responsible, and many vowing never to
return.
The National Park Service concluded that the impact of the Rule on
visitor experience is ``long-term moderate to major and adverse to ORV
users, and long-term beneficial to visitors who desire a vehicle free
beach experience''. The agency does not point out that the vast
majority of visitors are ORV users, or that the majority of those that
are not ORV users are indifferent to ORV access, and that the visitors
desiring a vehicle free beach experience had many such miles available
prior to the Rule.
Economic Impact
The negative visitor experience as a result of the Rule is directly
responsible for the substantial economic impact felt in the eight
villages on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. For a tourist based economy,
the math is simple--No Visitors = No Business.
When the Department of the Interior and National Park Service
courted the original property owners to join in to the movement to
create the Seashore, they were quick to point out the financial
windfall that would be enjoyed by the villagers through the development
of visitor services. With more than a bit of initial hesitancy and
suspicion, the villagers eventually donated or sold their land,
accepted the Park Service's encouragement and built the infrastructure
to support tourism.
Today, all businesses on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands are directly
or indirectly driven by tourism.
Springtime visitation has suffered for the past five years due to
access closures implemented under the temporary consent decree and is
suffering even more this year due to the more extensive closures in the
Final Rule.
Fall visitation, which is always threatened by the possibility of
tropical storms and hurricanes, will now suffer due to new permanent
closures and procedures under the Final Rule.
With both the spring and fall shoulder seasons impacted by the
Rule, businesses once prosperous are now struggling to survive.
(Historically, 47% of visitation to Cape Hatteras occurred in the
months of June, July and August. Conversely, 53% occurred in the other
nine months.) Many have already failed. Unless relief is provided from
the Rule, the only question is how many more will follow.
Seven-hundred twelve businesses, 3,117 weekly rental properties and
225 charter boats are found on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. All
directly or indirectly exist for the tourist business. All have or will
experience reduced income. All have or will have to survive with fewer
employees, shorter hours for staff, and longer hours and hardships for
the owners. Today, the unemployment rate in Dare County is 19% compared
to 10% in 2008. Hyde County's unemployment rate has gone from 8% to
13%. If statistics were available, I'm sure the Islands unemployment
rates would be even worse than their parent counties.
A few examples of what businesses have already experienced over the
past five years include:
Wayne Clark, owner of Edwards of Ocracoke Rooms and
Cottages in Ocracoke, has lost 15% of his spring business over
the past two years.
Bob Eakes, owner of Red Drum Tackle in Buxton, has
lost 55% of annual business since 2007 and now has three
employees rather than ten.
Frank Folb, owner of Frank and Fran's Fisherman's
Friend tackle shop in Avon, had a 20% drop in business the
first year of the consent decree and further drops since.
Anne Bowers, owner of Indian Town Gallery in Frisco,
has lost 70% of her March business due in part to the absence
of springtime fishermen who always want to buy a ``guilt'' gift
for their wives and girlfriends.
I have experienced a 30% loss in my annual business
at the Lighthouse Service Center and Lighthouse Auto Parts in
Buxton. Under the consent decree when the beaches closed in the
spring, my business dropped. When the beaches reopened in
August, my business improved. The beaches are already closed
this year. It remains to be seen what will happen in the fall
since many beaches will never reopen under the Rule.
Many of the business owners on Hatteras and Ocracoke scratch their
heads and comment with bitterness that although the federal government
has a goal of job creation, elsewhere it appears to have a goal of job
elimination here.
A timely example of the visitor and economic impact will occur this
weekend, April 28th and 29th. For 26 years, fishermen added their names
to the waiting list for one of the 600 spots in the annual fishing
tournament sponsored by the 4-Plus club of Richmond, Virginia. Last
year, the participation level fell below the 600 maximum to 550 for the
first time ever. As of Wednesday, only 373 have registered for this
year's event. Those choosing not to participate have cited the new fees
and lack of access as the reasons they will not return. The 4 Plus
tournament is the first of six long-standing annual surf fishing
tournaments at the Seashore. What will happen at the remaining five?
What H.R. 4094 means to us
H.R. 4094 will replace the destructive Final Rule with the Interim
Plan vetted and originally implemented in 2007 on a temporary basis.
This Plan will restore much of the access and recreational
opportunities denied the American public under the Rule, while
continuing to protect the Seashore's wildlife and other natural
resources.
H.R. 4094 will establish guidelines to ensure punishing and
unnecessary closures and restrictions will not be re-created in the
future as new rules are promulgated.
H.R. 4094 will ensure that, as new rules are promulgated, species
protection will be instituted based on peer-reviewed science.
H.R 4094 will further demonstrate the importance of public access
to Federal lands for recreational use in appropriate traditional and
historical manners. Through the passage of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act
of 2012 (H.R. 4089) on April 17th,the House recognized the importance
of angler access to Federal lands for recreational use.
H.R. 4094 will not require any new appropriations, and, through a
reduction in administrative complexity, may offer an opportunity for
personnel and construction savings over that anticipated by the Rule.
Finally, H.R. 4094 will ensure that, in the future, the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area will be managed such that
The Seashore's wildlife and other natural resources
will be protected without unnecessarily restricting public
access, use and enjoyment, and
Traditional, cultural, recreational and commercial
values so important to the visiting public and residents will
be respected and maintained.
I urge you to support the residents and visitors of the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area by passing H.R. 4094.
Thank you Congressman Jones for introducing this legislation, and
thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for this
opportunity to testify on this critical issue.
Additional Information
The Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (CHAPA) is a project
of the Outer Banks Preservation Association. The following
organizations support the access positions that have been developed and
presented by CHAPA.
North Carolina Beach Buggy Association (NCBBA)
Cape Hatteras Anglers Club
Dare County Board of Commissioners
Hyde County Board of Commissioners
American Sportfishing Association (ASA)
United Mobile Access Preservation Alliance (UMAP)
United Four Wheel Drive Associations
Watersports Industry Association, Inc.
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce
Dare County Tourism Board
Ocracoke Civic and Business Association
Hatteras Village Civic Association
Avon Property Owners Association
Assateague Mobile Sportsfishermen Association
New Jersey Beach Buggy Association
Long Island Beach Buggy Association
Rhode Island Mobile Sportsfishermen
Davis Island Fishing Federation
Massachusetts Beach Buggy Association
Virginia Coastal Access Now
Virginia Beach Anglers Club
Tidewater Anglers Club
Delaware Mobil Surf Fishermen
Farragut Striper Club
Association of Surf Angling Clubs
CCA of North Carolina
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let's turn to the other area of
concern, the oversight portion that deals with what is
happening in Florida.
First to Mr. Wright, Kenneth Wright, who is the Vice
Chairman of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission. Same 5-minute rule, please.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. WRIGHT, VICE CHAIRMAN, FLORIDA FISH AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Mr. Wright. Good morning, Chairman Bishop and Ranking
Member and members of the Subcommittee, and particularly the
good Congressman from the great State of Florida, Congressman
Rivera. And I appreciate the comments made by the earlier
Congress Members on the previous panel.
My name is Ken Wright. I am the Vice Chair of the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which I will refer
to as the FWC. We are the agency responsible for managing fish
and wildlife resources in the State of Florida. And I
appreciate the opportunity to address our concerns regarding
the development of a new general management plan for the
Biscayne National Park.
Located only 30 miles from downtown Miami, this park is
truly a national and State treasure. Fishing, boating, diving,
wildlife viewing, or just basking in the Florida sunshine have
long been longstanding traditions of citizens of South Florida
and countless visitors even from around the world. The
recreational activities within the park provide a substantial
economic driver for South Florida, which creates a ripple
effect throughout the State of Florida as an economic stimulus.
I am here to express the view that the State of Florida and
my agency are essential partners with the Federal Government in
making sure the park will be available to be enjoyed for
generations to come. We know from our experience that in order
to achieve our goals, public access and recreation must be
sustained. And, of course, it must be sustained in a
sustainable manner. There must be a balance between
accessibility and appropriate management.
We in Florida and particularly the Florida FWC have many
years of experience, and we are confident that public enjoyment
of natural resources can be balanced with resource protection.
This approach should recognize and respect traditional
activities like boating and fishing as the critical fabric to
resource conservation and should not be taken away from the
public when less and more effective options are readily
available.
I have a number of points to make.
We are concerned that the preferred alternative for a new
plan will unnecessarily prohibit fishing, both recreational and
commercial, in a 10,000-plus-acre marine reserve zone. While
this area constitutes 7 percent of the entire water area of the
park, as has been noted, it is some of our most popular and
productive fishing grounds in the park. This prohibition will
have a negative impact on public use and the local economy, yet
there are no efforts to try less restrictive management
strategies.
These actions lack sufficient scientific basis. They are
based largely on anecdotal and intuitive beliefs of expected
outcomes. Studies relied upon are from much different
ecological situations, much different in scale and different in
stress factors. The plan includes broad assumptions but no
analysis or metrics for their support.
Management of wide-ranging fishery stocks must be addressed
on a much larger and broader scale than simply the park area to
be successful, along with appropriate monitoring and with
regulation. Such systems are in place in Florida.
The plan states no-fishing zones are effective for managing
coral reef fisheries and that less restrictive options would be
difficult to enforce. It is disturbing that these statements
clearly pertain to fisheries management yet are made without
recognition of the provision in an MOU between the park and the
Florida FWC that states no-take areas shall be for, quote,
``other than sound fisheries management'' and without
recognition of the fact that Florida FWC is the agency that
provides the majority of the boating and resource law
enforcement within the park. And we don't believe that less
restrictive options would be any more difficult to enforce than
a no-take zone.
The input of boaters and anglers provided throughout the
process has essentially been ignored. Nor did the Park Service
adequately engage the State of Florida nor the FWC in the
process of selecting the preferred alternative, particularly
with regard to a fishing management issue. The preferred
alternative is inconsistent with our coastal management
program, and it ignores the role that the FWC and the State of
Florida would have in this process.
We are disappointed that they proposed to take the no-take
zone action without adequately considering less impactive
alternatives. We are cautiously optimistic that if we are able
to continue to work with the Park Service, we have experience,
Mr. Chairman and Members, in managing fish resources and would
love to continue to do so, but we don't think this closure is
necessary.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
Statement of Kenneth W. Wright, Vice-Chair, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), on ``Access Denied: Turning Away
Visitors to National Parks''
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is the
agency responsible for managing fish and wildlife resources for the
State of Florida. Ken Wright, Vice-Chair of FWC will address the
agency's concerns regarding the development of a new General Management
Plan for Biscayne National Park (Park), Florida.
Background
Located only 30 miles from downtown Miami, the Park is truly a
national and state treasure boasting beautiful clear blue waters,
extensive coral reefs, amazing marine life, a variety of sea birds, and
rare hardwood hammock islands. People flock to the Park to enjoy a wide
array of outdoor recreational experiences. Fishing, boating, diving,
wildlife viewing, or just basking in the Florida sunshine are long
standing traditions for citizens of south Florida and countless
visitors from around the world. Recreational activities in the Park are
a substantial economic driver for south Florida, creating a ripple
effect of economic stimulus across the entire state.
The Park is currently operating under a General Management Plan
(GMP) that was completed in 1983. The National Park Service (NPS) is
revising and updating the GMP to better address current and future
conditions and various management challenges. The new GMP proposes
alternatives for management of the Park for the next 20 or more years.
The FWC has significant concerns with the management actions that are
proposed in the GMP by the NPS, but are hopeful and guardedly
optimistic that these concerns can be resolved through further
coordination with the NPS.
Overview
The FWC takes stewardship of the natural resources and public
interest in this Park very seriously. The FWC recognizes that the State
of Florida is an essential partner with the Federal Government in
making sure the Park will be appreciated and enjoyed by generations to
come. Floridians and particularly the citizens of south Florida have
the keenest interest and the most at stake when it comes to the future
of this wonderful Park.
To achieve these goals, public access and recreation must be
sustained and must be sustainable. The Park must be managed carefully
to maintain the integrity and diversity of the natural features that
are so attractive. The good news is through many years of experience
and scientific study, it has been proven that public enjoyment of
natural resources can be readily balanced with resource protection by
using a measured approach and proper management tools. A measured
approach must recognize and respect traditional activities like boating
and fishing as critical to the very fabric of resource conservation and
restoration in the Park, and should not be taken away from the public
when less restrictive and less intrusive options are readily available.
The following are five key points that summarize the FWC's
concerns. It should be noted that a ``no-take zone'' is a term that is
used interchangeably in this document with a ``Marine Reserve Zone''. A
``Marine Reserve Zone'' is the term used by the Park to implement a no-
take area, wherein all fishing activities are prohibited.
Point one: The GMP states that no-take zones (i.e., Marine Reserve
Zones) are more effective for managing coral reef fisheries populations
than other less restrictive options, and further states that less
restrictive options would be difficult to enforce. It is highly
troubling that such statements are clearly all about fisheries
management and are made without recognition of a provision in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NPS and the FWC that only
agrees to no-take areas under the GMP process for purposes ``other than
sound fisheries management'', and without recognition of the fact that
the FWC is the primary provider of resource and boating law enforcement
support in the Park.
Point two: The Marine Reserve Zone included in the preferred
alternative for the new GMP, will unnecessarily prohibit all
recreational and commercial fishing in a 10,522 acre area. The GMP
notes that the Marine Reserve Zone would represent only 7% of the
entire water area of the Park, but fails to include that the Zone would
encompass some of the most popular and productive fishing grounds in
the Park. Furthermore, the Marine Reserve Zone will have significant
negative impacts on public use and the local economy and was proposed
without serious consideration of less restrictive management
strategies.
Point three: There is insufficient scientific basis to support
fisheries closures included in the preferred alternative. The GMP cites
scientific studies relative to restoration of coral reef systems, but
these studies were done in much different ecological situations, on a
much different scale, and do not have the same environmental conditions
or stress factors. It is troubling that the GMP includes broad
assumptions regarding the effectiveness of no fishing zones but
includes no analyses, metrics, or any other quantifiable measures to
support these statements. Moreover, there is no consideration given to
the fact that management of wide ranging fisheries stocks must be
addressed on a much broader scale than the Park to be successful using
more a comprehensive system of monitoring and regulation. Such a system
is already in place for the coastal waters of the Atlantic.
Point four: The input and interests of boaters and anglers provided
in good faith during the GMP planning process and prior to selection of
the preferred alternative were not adequately considered by NPS. In
addition, the NPS did not adequately engage the State of Florida and
the FWC in the process of selecting the preferred alternative,
particularly regarding the matter of fisheries management and
associated restrictions. This concern is amplified by the fact that
since 1970, the State of Florida has conveyed a significant amount of
acreage to the NPS to be incorporated into the Park, and further
amplified by the fact that the NPS agreed through the MOU to share
responsibilities and authorities regarding fisheries management with
the FWC formalized in a Fishery Management Plan.
Point five: Implementing the preferred alternative would be
inconsistent with Florida's federally approved Coastal Management
Program, and therefore inconsistent pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act passed by the United State Congress. The Park has not
acknowledged the right of the State of Florida to manage its fish and
wildlife resources in a consistent manner as provided for by the
Coastal Zone Management Act. Additionally, the Park has also not
adhered to the cooperative nature of the MOU that, if followed, would
likely have avoided inconsistencies with the Florida Coastal Management
Program.
It is important to note that the FWC has been engaging in
constructive dialogue with the NPS regarding fisheries management
issues contained in the GMP, but only since the release of the GMP to
the public. The FWC has offered a very workable solution that honors
the cooperative commitments and recognizes the shared goals and
responsibilities of the two levels of government. The FWC proposes that
the elements of the GMP regarding no-take zones and other fisheries
management issues be withdrawn from the GMP, and alternatively
evaluated as part of the Fishery Management Plan development process.
This would allow the agencies to address these issues in a
collaborative and transparent manner in coordination with interested
stakeholders, and would allow the GMP to move forward without delay.
Supporting Information
A. Memorandum of Understanding: Fishery Management Plan and fisheries
management coordination
In 2002 and subsequently in 2007, the FWC entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the Park to ``facilitate the management,
protection, and scientific study of fish and aquatic resources'' within
the Park ``by improving communication, cooperation and coordination''
between the FWC and the Park (Appendix A). The MOU provides relevant
background information, lists objectives to be achieved, outlines
regulatory authorities, and details expectations of work on behalf of
both the FWC and the Park for the mutual benefit of the aquatic
resources within the Park. One of the tasks identified in the MOU is
the joint development of a comprehensive fisheries management plan. The
purpose of the Fishery Management Plan is to provide for the long-term
management of fish and aquatic resources within the Park, separately
yet complementary to a GMP.
The development of the Fishery Management Plan is ongoing, and the
GMP specifically states:
``Due to this ongoing planning process, the GMP will not
address fisheries management in its alternatives'' (page 16 of
the GMP). In fact, however, Alternatives 2 through 5 of the GMP
do address fisheries management, either directly or indirectly,
by proposing to establish zones where fishing activities would
be prohibited, access would be limited, additional permits
would be required, and limitations or prohibitions would be
placed on the use of harvesting gear, internal combustion
motors, and vessel type, size and speed. All ten of the
proposed zones in the GMP manage fishing activities in some
manner, and the GMP specifically identifies ``managing
recreational [and commercial] fishing in the interest of sound
conservation'' as a management action in the majority of the
zones' descriptions (pages 48-58 of the GMP).
In addition to addressing fishery management issues in the GMP, the
proposed management actions within the GMP have not been jointly
evaluated with the FWC, nor was the agency consulted in advance of
these actions being proposed and released to the public for comment.
This is also in direct conflict with the MOU, which states:
Article III--Statement of Work:
A. FWC and the Park agree to:
. . .2. Acknowledge that the FWC will play a crucial role in
implementing and promulgating new regulations as may be deemed
appropriate, as well as take other management actions to
achieve the mutual objectives for the management of fisheries
within the boundaries of the Park for the term of this MOU.
However, the agencies agree to consult with each other on any
actions that they may propose to be taken to conserve or
protect fish populations and other aquatic resources within
Park boundaries or to further regulate the fisheries.
. . .5. Consult with each other and jointly evaluate the
commercial and recreational harvest of fishery resources within
the Park. Such consultation and evaluation, as set forth in the
enabling legislation establishing the Park, should include a
full review of all commercial and recreational fishery
practices, harvest data, permitting requirements, techniques
and other pertinent information for the purposes of determining
to what extent mutually agreed upon fishery management goals
are being met within the Park and to determine what additional
management actions, if any, are necessary to achieve stated
management goals.
The enabling legislation establishing the Park and the MOU executed
in good faith clearly call for consultation and coordination with the
State of Florida/FWC regarding fisheries management. The Fishery
Management Plan is the most appropriate tool to support this
consultation and coordination. The proposed regulatory actions in the
GMP that affect fishing activities combined with the lack of advanced
agency coordination make it abundantly evident that the Park's
regulatory strategy is to address fisheries management issues within
the context of the GMP, and outside of the framework of the MOU and the
Fishery Management Plan.
Accordingly, the FWC has respectfully called for the NPS to honor
these requirements and commitments by withdrawing fishery- and fishing-
related provisions from the GMP, and working closely with the FWC and
stakeholders to develop proposals that reflect a better balance between
conservation and recreation in the Fishery Management Plan.
B. Memorandum of Understanding: Use of unnecessarily restrictive
management actions
The FWC and the Park have differing viewpoints regarding the use of
marine reserves or no-take areas as a management strategy. This was
specifically addressed in the MOU as follows:
WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree to seek the least restrictive
management actions necessary to fully achieve mutual management
goals for the fishery resources of the Park and adjoining
areas. Furthermore, both parties recognize the FWC's belief
that marine reserves (no-take areas) are overly restrictive and
that less-restrictive management measures should be implemented
during the duration of this MOU. Consequently, the FWC does not
intend to implement a marine reserve (no-take area) in the
waters of the Park during the duration of this MOU, unless both
parties agree it is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the FWC
and the Park recognize that the Park intends to consider the
establishment of one or more marine reserves (no-take areas)
under its General Management Planning process for purposes
other than sound fisheries management in accordance with
Federal authorities, management policies, directives and
executive orders. . .
The Park did not seek the least restrictive management actions to
accomplish management goals, and did not propose a Marine Reserve Zone
in the GMP ``for purposes other than sound fisheries management.'' The
GMP states that the proposed Marine Reserve Zone ``would be about 7% of
the waters of the Park, and less than 13% of the offshore areas of the
park'' (page 82 of the GMP). Whether intentional or not, this reference
to ``waters'' and ``offshore areas'' instead of actual ``fishing
areas'' creates the illusion that the proposed Marine Reserve Zone is a
very small area in comparison to the rest of the Park, ``. . .while not
being so large as to completely eliminate the opportunities for fishing
any of the park's reef areas'' (page 327 of the GMP). The reality is
that the proposed Marine Reserve Zone includes some of the most popular
reef fishing areas within the Park. Combined with nine other proposed
Zones that will restrict or eliminate fishing opportunities either
directly or indirectly, these actions will have a serious negative
impact on fishing within the Park. The management actions proposed in
the GMP represent the most extreme tools available for resource
management in these selected areas within the Park, ignoring
alternative ways to achieve desired resource improvements without
sacrificing the public's ability to access portions of the Park for
fishing.
C. Lack of information to support proposed management actions
The FWC recognizes that the NPS has different but complementary
goals for managing Florida's fish and wildlife resources located within
the Park's boundaries. The FWC also recognizes the significant value of
the habitat resources within the Park to recreational and commercial
fisheries, and the need to protect them. While the FWC supports sound
resource management within the Park, the FWC cannot support how certain
management actions in the GMP have been developed and proposed because
of the lack of scientific evidence and lack of consideration of public
access and use.
1. The Science
The Park has failed to provide the scientific evidence necessary to
support the need for a complete fishery closure in the Marine Reserve
Zone. For example, data or analyses demonstrating the conservation
benefits achieved by a complete fishery closure as compared to other,
less restrictive management measures (e.g., catch-and-release fishing,
size or slot limits, and closed seasons) were never presented in the
GMP or specifically discussed with the FWC before releasing the GMP.
Instead, the GMP states:
Scientific data indicates that no-take zones are more effective
at reducing mortality, especially for reef species, than other
methodologies, including catch and release, slot limits, etc.
Additionally, a catch and release zone would be difficult to
enforce. Therefore, within this zone, recreational and
commercial fishing would be prohibited to encourage long-term
protection of the reef ecosystem (page 82 of the GMP).
Since no data, analyses, or any other quantifiable measure is
provided to support these statements, it is impossible for the FWC to
evaluate their scientific credibility. Furthermore, the FWC provides
the boating and resources enforcement in the Park. Enforcement of less
restrictive management measures are no more difficult for the agency to
enforce than no-take zones--both require officers to patrol and check
boaters/anglers to ensure compliance with whatever the regulation may
be.
The FWC is also seriously concerned that, although the proposed
Marine Reserve Zone is supposed to provide ``. . .beneficial impacts on
fisheries, and submerged aquatic communities. . .'' (page iv of the
GMP), no data or other scientific evidence is provided to evaluate
whether this Zone was designed to provide protection from the full
suite of known threats (e.g., water quality and other non-fishing,
human-caused stressors) that can affect the biodiversity and long-term
viability of coral reef ecosystems. It is well documented in scientific
literature that non-fishing activities such as diving and snorkeling
can have a significant impact on reef communities, yet the Park is not
proposing to manage these activities and is only focusing on fishing
activities. Had the options for managing each threat been the subject
of appropriate assessments, it would likely have been apparent that
area closures, such as the proposed Marine Reserve Zone, represents an
inappropriate or at least an inefficient mechanism for the management,
precautionary or otherwise, of many recognized threats, including those
from fishing and diving.
Common ``unintended consequences'' (e.g., potential impacts caused
by displacement of fishing effort to areas outside the no-take zone) of
implementing marine no-take zones that are well documented in the
scientific literature, also seem to have not been evaluated by the
Park. For example, the Park's Preferred Alternative, which includes the
proposed Marine Reserve Zone, lacks any evaluation of the potential
negative impacts caused by increased fishing effort outside the Zone by
fishers displaced to nearby areas where fishing would continue to be
allowed. The GMP states:
Even though fishing pressure may increase outside this zone
[emphasis added], the expected increase in size and abundance
of fish within the Marine Reserve Zone is expected to have a
``spillover'' effect outside the zone, as documented in other
Marine Reserve Zones worldwide (page 230 of the GMP).
Again, no analyses, metrics, or any other quantifiable measure is
provided to support this statement, much less how it relates to the
specific no-take zone being proposed in the Park. What the Park is
presenting as the science supporting their proposed management actions
is that studies of no-take zones in the Florida Keys have shown
conservation benefits to coral reef ecosystems, including the reef fish
communities therein, to a ``more natural state.'' In other words, if
no-take zones are good for the Florida Keys, they must be good for
Biscayne Bay. This kind of extrapolation should not be made without
working through a comprehensive and collaborative analysis of all
factors influencing the health and recovery of coral reef ecosystems in
the Park to provide a valid scientific basis for evaluation of a number
of management options that ultimately demonstrate: (1) the conservation
benefits likely to be achieved by management actions; and (2) whether
the same conservation benefits could be achieved by applying less
restrictive management actions.
In summary, the Park has failed to provide the scientific evidence
necessary to support the proposed Marine Reserve Zone. Furthermore, the
proposed Marine Reserve Zone affects fishing practices that are already
well-managed by state and federal agencies, according to well-
established and scientifically credible conservation standards. The FWC
is concerned the focus on restricting fishing and boating is diverting
attention from the suite of real threats potentially affecting both
protected and unprotected areas in the Park including water quality
issues.
2. Public Access and Use
The GMP proposes to implement zones that have the potential to
significantly limit access by fishers through vessel operation (e.g.,
vessel speed, vessel size and motor type). Strategies such as slow-
speed or non-combustion engines zones used to protect resources can be
important management tools. On the other hand, these strategies also
have the potential to impact resources if not designed to avoid or
minimize access limitation. It is a commonly held misconception that
fishers continue to have access to areas for fishing after slow-speed
or non-combustion engine management strategies are implemented, because
in theory fishers can still pole, troll, or operate a vessel at limited
speed in order to fish. In reality, many fishers do not utilize these
areas because of factors that significantly contribute to
accessibility. These factors include public and private boat launch
locations, currents, tides, prevailing winds, and how to get in and out
of a zone quickly in the event of bad weather or with enough time to
fish a tide. As mentioned above, access limitation may result in
concentrating resource impacts in adjacent areas that are not managed
under these strategies, or concentrating resource impacts in smaller,
accessible portions of the areas managed under these strategies because
factors that contribute to accessibility were not considered during the
planning process.
D. ``Who has management authority in Biscayne National Park?''
The issue of management authority of fish and wildlife in the Park
has been discussed by the FWC and the NPS for many years. When only
considering the state and federal laws that apply to the establishment
of the Park, it is a situation the two agencies have simply had to
agree to disagree.
The current authority issue has arisen in response to the State of
Florida's review of the draft version of the Park's GMP under the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act,
passed by Congress and implemented by NOAA, requires that activities
conducted by federal agencies (or on behalf of federal agencies)
affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a state's
coastal zone be fully consistent with each state's coastal management
program. Each state's coastal management program must be approved by
NOAA. Florida's approved Coastal Management Program allows the State to
review federal activities affecting the land or water uses or natural
resources of Florida for consistency with Florida's Coastal Management
Program.
The management actions proposed by the Park in the GMP are not
fully consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program.
Specifically, the Park has not fully taken into account the right of
the State of Florida to manage its fish and wildlife resources in a
consistent manner as provided for by the Coastal Zone Management Act.
If the Park had adhered to the cooperative nature of the MOU, it would
have likely avoided inconsistencies with the Florida Coastal Management
Program.
The Solution
The FWC is disappointed that the Park chose to propose the most
restrictive management actions without adequately considering less
restrictive management options that would likely accomplish the same
goals. The solution moving forward is for the NP to follow the
``Purpose of the Plan'' as stated in the GMP: ``Ensure that this
foundation for decision making has been developed in consultation with
interested stakeholders and adopted by the National Park Service
leadership after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and
economic costs of alternative courses of action'' (page 6 of the GMP).
This can be accomplished by removing fisheries management issues from
the GMP, and instead provide for an evaluation of alternative fisheries
management strategies in the Fishery Management Plan developed in
consultation with the FWC and interested stakeholders. This will not
delay finalizing the GMP, and it will allow for a more balanced
approach to management.
______
Appendix A
Memorandum of Understanding
between
the State of Florida, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
and
the National Park Service, Biscayne National Park
NPS Agreement Number G5250H0083
ARTICLE I--BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
WHEREAS, The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) is to
facilitate the management, protection and scientific study of fish and
aquatic resources within the National Park Service, Biscayne National
Park (hereinafter referred to as the Park) by improving communication,
cooperation and coordination between the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the FWC) and the
Park; and
WHEREAS, Biscayne National Monument was established by Congress in
1968 ``in order to preserve and protect for the education, inspiration,
recreation, and enjoyment of present and future generations a rare
combination of terrestrial, marine, and amphibious life in a tropical
setting of great natural beauty'' (PL 90-606). The Monument was later
expanded in 1974 (PL 93-477), and again in 1980 (PL 96-287), to its
current size of 173,000 acres (270 square miles), when it was also
redesignated as the Park, where excellent opportunities are provided
for fishing, snorkeling, scuba diving, boating, canoeing, kayaking,
windsurfing and swimming; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida conveyed sovereign submerged lands to
the United States in 19.70 to become part of Biscayne National
Monument; and
WHEREAS, the Park is made up predominantly of submerged lands (95
percent), and may be divided generally into three major environments:
coral reef, estuarine and terrestrial. The boundaries of the Park begin
at the west mangrove shoreline, extend east to Biscayne Bay (including
seagrass communities and shoals), the keys (including hardwood
hammocks, mangrove wetlands, sandy beaches and rocky inter-tidal
areas), the reef, and continue to their easternmost extent at a
contiguous 60-foot depth contour. The northern boundary of the Park is
near the southern extent of Key Biscayne, while the southern boundary
is near the northern extent of Key Largo, adjacent to the Barnes Sound
and Card Sound areas; and
WHEREAS, Biscayne Bay has also been designated by the State of
Florida as an Aquatic Preserve, Outstanding Florida Water, Outstanding
National Resource Water (pending ratification of State water quality
standards) and lobster sanctuary under Florida Law, and by Dade County
as an aquatic park and conservation area; and
WHEREAS, both FWC and the Park have responsibilities under Federal
and State laws and regulations that affect fish and other aquatic
resources within the Park; and
WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree that ``when possible and
practicable, stocks of fish shall be managed as a biological unit''
(Chapter 370.025(d) Florida Statutes). This statement is intended to
recognize that measures to end overfishing and rebuild stocks are most
effective when implemented over the range of the biological stock;
however, it is not intended to preclude implementation of additional or
more restrictive management measures within the Park than in adjacent
State waters as a means of achieving mutual objectives; and
WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree that properly regulated commercial
and recreational fishing will be continued within the boundaries of the
Park. FWC and the Park recognize and acknowledge that commercial and
recreational fishing constitutes activities of statewide importance
that benefit the health and welfare of the people of the State of
Florida. The parties also recognize and acknowledge that preserving the
nationally significant resources of the Park to a high conservation and
protection standard to be agreed upon by both parties in the fishery
management plan for all citizens to enjoy is of statewide as well as
national importance, and as such, will also benefit the health and
welfare of the people of the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree to seek the least restrictive
management actions necessary to fully achieve mutual management goals
for the fishery resources of the Park and adjoining areas. Furthermore,
both parties recognize the FWC's belief that marine reserves (no-take
areas) are overly restrictive and that less-restrictive management
measures should be implemented during the duration of this MOD.
Consequently, the FWC does not intend to implement a marine reserve
(no-take area) in the waters of the Park during the duration of this
MOD, unless both parties agree it is absolutely necessary. Furthermore,
the FWC and the Park recognize that the Park intends to consider the
establishment of one or more marine reserves (no-take areas) under its
General Management Planning process for purposes other than sound
fisheries management in accordance with Federal authorities, management
policies, directives and executive orders; and
WHEREAS, both parties wish this MOU to reflect their common goals
and intended cooperation and coordination to achieve those goals.
ARTICLE II--AUTHORITY
In the Organic Act of 1916, U.S.C. Sec. 1, Congress created the
National Park Service (NPS) to promote and regulate the National Park
System for ``the purpose of conserving the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment
of the same in such manner and by such means as would leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' Congress further
determined, in 16 U.S.C. Sec. la-I, that the authorization of
activities within units of the National Park System be construed, and
the protection, management and administration of national parks be
conducted, in the light of high public value and integrity of the
National Park System.
The legislation establishing the Park states that the ``Secretary
shall preserve and administer the park in accordance with the
provisions of sections 1 and 2 to 4 of this title, as amended and
supplemented. The waters within the park shall continue to be open to
fishing in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida except as
the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate officials of said
State, designates species for which, areas and times within which, and
methods by which fishing is prohibited, limited, or otherwise regulated
in the interest of sound conservation to achieve the purposes for which
the park is established: Provided, that with respect to lands donated
by the State after the effective date of this Act, fishing shall be in
conformance with State law.'' PL 96-287, Sec. 103(a), codified at 16
U.S.C. Sec. 410gg-2(a).
As a unit of the National Park System, the Park is authorized under
16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1-6 to participate in memoranda of understanding
that document mutually agreed upon policies, procedures and
relationships that do not involve funding.
The FWC was created by Article IV, Sec. 9 of the Florida
Constitution and is vested with the state's executive and regulatory
authority with respect to freshwater aquatic life, wild animal life and
marine life. This authority, directly derived from the Constitution,
provides the FWC with autonomy to regulate and manage wild animal life,
freshwater aquatic life and marine life within the State of Florida,
which includes the areas encompassed by the Park.
The FWC is authorized under Chapter 370.103, Florida Statutes, to
enter into cooperative agreements with the Federal Government or
agencies thereof for the purpose of preserving saltwater fisheries
within and without state waters and for the purpose of protecting
against overfishing, waste, depletion, or any abuse whatsoever. Such
authority includes authority to enter into cooperative agreements
whereby officers of the FWC are empowered to enforce federal statutes
and rules pertaining to fisheries management.
The regulatory responsibility of the State of Florida with respect
to fishing on the original Park lands is set forth in section 1 03(a)
of PL 96-287 (see above). The regulatory responsibility of the State of
Florida with respect to fishing on additional lands conveyed to the
Park after the effective date of PL 96-287 is set forth in a Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Dedication dated
December 13, 1985, which contains the following special reservation:
``All rights to fish on the waters shall be retained and not
transferred to the United States and fishing on the waters shall be
subject to the laws of the State of Florida.''
NOW, THEREFORE, both parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE III--STATEMENT OF WORK
A. FWC and the Park agree to:
Seek concurrence in meeting their management goals and strive to
identify means, measures and other interagency actions for the mutual
benefit of the aquatic resources within Biscayne Bay and the Park.
Acknowledge that the FWC will play a crucial role in implementing
and promulgating new regulations as may be deemed appropriate, as well
as take other management actions to achieve the mutual objectives for
the management of fisheries within the boundaries of the Park for the
term of this MOD. However, the agencies agree to consult with each
other on any actions that they may propose to be taken to conserve or
protect fish populations and other aquatic resources within Park
boundaries or to further regulate the fisheries.
Provide for recreational and commercial fishing and opportunities
for the angling public and other Park visitors to enjoy the natural
aquatic environment.
Manage fisheries within the Park and Biscayne Bay according to
applicable Federal and State laws, and in a manner that promotes
healthy, self-sustaining fish populations and recognizes the biological
characteristics and reproductive potential of individual species.
Desired future conditions for fisheries and visitor experiences within
the Park will be established cooperatively to further guide fisheries
management.
Consult with each other and jointly evaluate the commercial and
recreational harvest of fishery resources within the Park. Such
consultation and evaluation, as set forth in the enabling legislation
establishing the Park, should include a full review of all commercial
and recreational fishery practices, harvest data, permitting
requirements, techniques and other pertinent information for the
purposes of determining to what extent mutually agreed upon fishery
management goals are being met within the Park and to determine what
additional management actions, if any, are necessary to achieve stated
management goals.
Collaborate on the review and approval of proposals for fisheries
stock assessment, site characterization, maintenance or restoration,
including scientifically based harvest management, species
reestablishment, stocking, habitat protection, and habitat restoration
or rehabilitation.
Notify each other, as early as possible, of the release of
information pertaining to the development of agency policies,
management plans, statutes, rules and regulations that may affect
fisheries and aquatic resource management within the Park boundary.
Share scientific information, field data and observations on Park
fishery resources and activities affecting those resources, except in
situations where the exchange of such data would violate State or
Federal laws or regulations (e.g. law enforcement investigations and
confidential landings statistics). The parties will provide each other
with copies of reports that include results of work conducted within
the Park or Biscayne Bay.
Jointly consider proposals for the management and control of exotic
(non-indigenous) species, if found to occur within the Park or in
adjacent areas, that may pose a threat to the integrity of Park
resources. Exotic species are those that occur in a given place as a
result of direct or indirect, deliberate or accidental actions by
humans.
Review and coordinate, on an annual basis, proposals for fisheries
and aquatic resources management, research, inventory and monitoring
within the Park and Biscayne Bay. Each party will provide prospective
researchers with legal notice of agency-specific permitting
requirements. Additionally, as a courtesy, and to encourage information
sharing, the FWC and the Park will provide each other with annual
summaries of marine and terrestrial research, inventory and monitoring
activities conducted within and in close proximity to the Park.
Meet at least once annually and otherwise as needed to coordinate
management and research activities and exchange information on fish and
aquatic resources within the Park and Biscayne Bay.
Recognize that there may be times when the missions of the FWC and
the Park may differ, and that while efforts will be made to the maximum
extent possible to cooperate fully and jointly manage fishing within
the Park as intended by Congress when the Park was established, there
may be occasion when the two agencies choose to disagree. Such
occasions will not be construed, as impasses and every attempt will
made to avoid communication barriers and to not jeopardize future
working relationships.
Develop a comprehensive fisheries management plan (hereinafter
referred to as the Plan) for the long-term management of fish and
aquatic resources within the Park. The Plan will summarize existing
information and ongoing activities, clarify agency jurisdiction, roles
and responsibilities, identify additional opportunities for cooperative
management, list key issues, establish management goals and objectives,
describe desired future conditions, indicators, performance measures
and management triggers, and develop a list of prioritized project
statements. Specifically, with respect to developing the Plan, the two
agencies agree as follows:
B. The FWC agrees to:
1. Assist the Park, and play a collaborative role in
coordinating with the Park and its cooperators, in the
development and ongoing review of the Plan.
2. Provide representation to a technical committee formed to
guide interagency fisheries management within Biscayne Bay,
including the Park, and participate in monthly teleconference
calls and meetings as may be scheduled for purposes of steering
fisheries management planning project.
3. Assign staff, including those from the Florida Marine
Research Institute, as deemed appropriate to assist the Park
and its cooperators in developing credible project statements
or preliminary research proposals. The emphasis of such
proposals will be to design and prioritize projects intended to
meet known fisheries data gaps or resource knowledge
deficiencies to facilitate scientifically based and informed
fisheries management decision-and rule-making.
4. Provide representation to and support for forming the
Scientific Advisory Panel for the purposes described in CA
below.
5. Provide access to and support for requests by the Park to
existing data and information as may be applicable to Biscayne
Bay fisheries and aquatic resources, jurisdictions and other
pertinent aspects to developing the Plan.
6. Review and comment upon drafts of the Plan and participate
in joint meetings that will be arranged to solicit public
opinion and comment concerning proposed fisheries management
actions and/or alternatives as may be described within the
draft Plan; and to review and comment upon any fisheries and
aquatic resources issues and alternatives as may be identified
within the Park's General Management Plan, also being developed
in 2001-2002.
7. Facilitate information exchange and otherwise provide
briefings to FWC Commissioners as necessary and deemed
appropriate by the FWC.
8. Facilitate information exchange and otherwise provide
briefings as may be deemed appropriate to the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, of which FWC's Director of the
Division of Marine Fisheries is a member.
9. Work with the Park to promulgate or revise existing State
and Federal rules/regulations as may be jointly identified and
recommended within the Plan.
10. As may be provided under State law and FWC policies, and
upon full review, comment, revision and concurrence by the FWC,
co-sign and endorse the Plan.
C. The Park agrees to:
Subject to the availability of funds, provide project funding
support to cooperators, under contractual requirements separate from
this MOU and described within an approved study plan prepared by NPS,
to complete the Plan.
Secure contractors and cooperation from other fisheries experts to
develop and/or assist the Park in developing the Plan. These
cooperators may include, but are not limited to, research fishery
biologists, aquatic ecologists and fisheries program managers from the
FWC, Tennessee Valley Authority, Everglades National Park, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and the
University of Miami--Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science.
Form a technical steering committee comprised of Park personnel as
well as those cited inC.2 above, and arrange and coordinate monthly
teleconference calls and periodic other meetings of this committee as
necessary to develop the Plan.
Arrange and coordinate a Scientific Advisory Panel to review the
findings and recommendations contained in the 2001 report entitled
``Site Characterization for Biscayne National Park: Assessment of
Fisheries Resources and Habitats,'' prepared under contract for the
Park by Dr. Jerald S. Ault, et al.
Work with the FWC to promulgate or revise existing State and
Federal rules/regulations as may be jointly identified and recommended
within the Plan.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, arrange and
coordinate public meetings, Federal Register Notices, and other
requirements associated with preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement in conjunction with the Plan.
Under contractual arrangements separate from this MOU, finance,
print, and distribute a reasonable and sufficient number of draft and
final copies of the Plan to all cooperators and other entities with an
expressed or vested interest.
As requested by the FWC, help conduct or simply attend briefings,
presentations or other forums concerning fisheries/wildlife management
within Biscayne Bay, including the Park.
Facilitate and encourage the joint publication of press releases
and the interchange between parties of all pertinent agency policies
and objectives, statutes, rules and regulations, and other information
required for the wise use and perpetuation of the fisheries resources
of the Park.
Facilitate research permitting to state entities for activities
needed to accomplish goals identified in the Plan.
ARTICLE IV--TERMS OF AGREEMENT
This MOU shall become effective upon signature by all parties
hereto, and is executed as of the date of the last of those signatures
and shall remain in effect for a term of five (5) years unless
rescinded as provided in Article IX. It may be reaffirmed and extended
for an additional five years.
This MOU in no way restricts the FWC or the Park from participating
in similar activities with other public or private agencies,
organizations, and individuals.
This MOu is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Any
endeavor involving reimbursement or contribution of funds between the
Park and the FWC will be handled in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, and procedures. Such endeavors will be set forth in
separate written agreements executed by the parties and shall be
independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority.
ARTICLE V--KEY OFFICIALS
A. For Biscayne National Park:
Superintendent
Biscayne National Park
9700 SW 328th Street
Homestead, FL 33033 B.
B. For the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission:
Executive Director
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
ARTICLE VI--PRIOR APPROVAL
Not applicable
ARTICLE VII--REPORTS AND/OR OTHER DELIVERABLES
Upon request and to the full extent permitted by applicable law,
the parties shall share with each other final reports of actions
involving both parties.
ARTICLE VIII--PROPERTY UTILIZATION
Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties, any property
furnished by one party to the other shall remain the property of the
furnishing party. Any property furnished by the Park to the FWC during
the performance of this MOU shall be used and disposed of as set forth
in Federal property management regulations found at 41 C.F.R. Part 102.
ARTICLE IX--MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION
Either party may terminate this MOU by providing 60 days advance
written notice to the other party. However, following such notice and
before termination becomes effective, the parties will attempt to
address and resolve the issues that led to the issuance of the notice.
Any disputes that may arise as a result of this MOU shall be
subject to negotiation upon written request of either party, and each
of the parties agrees to negotiate in good faith. The parties shall use
their best efforts to conduct such negotiations at the lowest
organizational level before seeking to elevate a dispute. If the
parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree
to mediation using a neutral acceptable to both parties. Subject to the
availability of funds, each party will pay an equal share of any costs
for mediation services as such costs are incurred. If the dispute
cannot be resolved through mediation, it will be elevated to a third
party acceptable to both the Park and FWC for a final decision.
This MOU may be reviewed and/or modified at any time upon written
agreement of the FWC and the Park.
ARTICLE X--STANDARD CLAUSES
A. Compliance With Laws
This MOU is subject to the laws of the United States and the State
of Florida, and all lawful rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder, and shall be interpreted accordingly.
B. Civil Rights
During the performance of this MOU, the parties agree to abide by
the terms of the U.S. Department of the Interior (hereinafter referred
to as the Department)-Civil Rights Assurance Certification, non-
discrimination and will not discriminate against any person because of
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The participants will
take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without
regard to their race, color, sexual orientation, national origin,
disabilities, religion, age or sex.
C. Promotions
The FWC will not publicize or otherwise circulate promotional
material (such as advertisements, sales brochures, press releases,
speeches, still and motion pictures, articles, manuscripts, or other
publications), which states or implies Governmental, Departmental,
bureau or Government employee endorsement of a product, service or
position, which the Department represents. No release of information
relating to this MOU may state or imply that the Government approves of
the FWC's work product, or considers the Department's work product to
be superior to other products or services.
D. Public Information Release
The FWC will obtain prior approval from the Park for any public
information releases, which refers, to the Department, any bureau, park
unit, or employee (by name or title), or to this MOU. The specific
text, layout, photographs, etc. of the proposed release must be
submitted with the request for approval.
E. Liability Provision
Each party to this agreement will indemnify, save and hold
harmless, and defend each other against all fines, claims, damages,
losses, judgments, and expenses arising out of, or from, any omission
or activity of such person organization, its representatives, or
employees. During the term of the MOD, the Park will be liable for
property damage, injury or death caused by the wrongful or negligent
act or omission of an employee, agent, or assign of the Park acting
within the scope of his or her employment under circumstances in which
the Park, if a private person, would be liable to a claimant in
accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission
occurred, only to the extent allowable under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq.
ARTICLE XI--SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on
the dates set forth below.
FOR BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK:
Signature:
Mark Lewis Superintendent Biscayne National Park
Date:
FOR THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION:
Signature:
Ken Haddad
Executive Director
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Date:
______
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Crook, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KARL CROOK, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
CROOK AND CROOK, INC., FLORIDA RESIDENT
Mr. Crook. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Karl Crook, and I am honored to be
here to testify before you today.
I am President and CEO of Crook and Crook Marine and
Fishing Supplies, which was established by my parents in 1958
in Miami, Florida. I have been in the business all my life. For
53 years, my company knows that our business is directly tied
to and very dependent on the fishery resources that our
residents, our visitors, and customers enjoy today. We are also
dependent on them having access--access is key--to our public
waters, which is what brings me here today.
Anglers are willing to make sacrifice for the betterment of
the resources as long as they are confident that these
sacrifices are based on strong science, good common sense, and
a true desire to improve the health of the fisheries they so
enjoy today.
The closures being proposed in Biscayne National Park,
specifically the 10,000-acre marine reserve, in the draft
general management plan preferred alternative are not based on
solid fishery management data and will significantly and
unnecessarily close a massive area of park waters. Since we are
still in draft form, there is still time to make the correct
decision and listen to the public, the representatives, and the
people that know the fisheries of South Florida.21Through 35
years of involvement in the marine and fishing community, I am
very familiar with the use of the surrounding waters and
fisheries, including those in Biscayne National Park. The
National Park Service will tell you that their proposed reserve
zone is small, only 7 percent of the park. But when you
consider that it is 35 percent of the most fished areas, it
changes that dynamic. This massive closure covers some of the
park's most popular and productive fishing areas. The
tremendous loss of fishing opportunity is more significant than
that 7 percent.
The National Park Service will also tell you that they are
proposing this closure for reasons other than fishery
management. But once you look a little deeper and you read
paragraph and page after page, it is clear that this is false.
Restricting and prohibiting fishing in order to protect fish
habitat and rebuild fish stocks is inherently fish management
responsibility. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Management
Commission and the park's Fishery Management Plan Stakeholder
Working Group have concluded that other less restrictive
management measures other than a marine reserve can and should
be implemented in the park.
By proposing a marine reserve, the National Park Service is
casting aside professional and local expertise of fisheries
management and severing trust with the local boating and sport-
fishing community. I contend this is the easy way out but not
the best way.
Where the recreational fishing is having an impact on
reefs, there are many less restrictive management approaches,
like anchoring areas and strong species-by-species fishing
regulations, which can be put in place to mitigate fishing
impact. Closing local fisheries' access will substantially
impact hundreds of jobs and livelihoods in our local economy
and beyond. The National Park Service should stop and
reconsider the proposed marine reserve in the general
management plan and instead work with the FWC and local
stakeholders to address fishery resources challenges within the
fisheries management plan.
By slowing this process down and reevaluating the variety
of other tools available, I am confident that the plan can be
reached that addresses the resource challenges in the park
while still allowing the public to access the public park's
waters and fisheries.
Please consider in your reading of the original memorandum
of understanding between the State of Florida and the intent of
the State when the land was given to the Park Service. Please
also read the working group proposal of 2004. Considering all
that is being discussed before you today, it becomes apparent
that most of the working group proposals have been ignored.
Both the documents are attached in my written testimony.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before
you here today.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crook follows:]
Statement of Karl Crook, President and CEO, Crook and Crook Inc., DBA
Crook and Crook Fishing and Marine Supplies, on ``Access Denied:
Turning Away Visitors to National Parks''
Good Morning, my name is Karl Crook and I am honored to have been
asked to testify before the House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands regarding the
proposed General Management Plan for Biscayne National Park located in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. I have been a resident of Miami Dade County
since 1957 when my parents moved from New England to Miami. Having been
born in 1956, I can say I have spent my entire life close to, or
literally on, the waters of Biscayne National Park. My parents and I
resided on a 34 foot boat at Dinner Key Marina when I was a child.
In 1958 my parents founded Crook and Crook Fishing and Marine
Supplies in Coconut Grove Florida. I grew up in the business and took
over full reign of Crook and Crook upon my mother's passing in 1985. I
have run the business as a sole proprietor up to today.
I am currently an active member of the Dade County chapter of the
Coastal Conservation Association and the American Sports fishing
Association. I currently serve on the Board of Directors of the Bob
Lewis Memorial Fishing Tournament and the University of Miami Hall of
Fame Fishing Tournament. As a company, Crook and Crook sponsors and
supports fishing tournaments and fishing related children charities in
and around our community and abroad to promote and support recreational
fishing.
Having been in business for 53 years, my company has learned that
our business is directly tied to, and dependent on, the fisheries
resources that our customers enjoy. In order to serve the anglers and
boaters that shop in our stores and our online catalog, we must first
support creating healthy and abundant fisheries for them to pursue. We
also depend on them having access to our public waters, which is what
brings me here today to talk about a major threat to fishing access in
on of south Florida's prime fishing areas--Biscayne National Park.
Biscayne National Park is a regional treasure. It deserves the
proper attention and controlled use to sustain and protect the natural
beauty and resources contained within the park. Through 35 years of
involvement with the marine and fishing community, I am very familiar
with the uses of the surrounding waters and fisheries with respect to
recreational fishing, tourism and to somewhat of a lesser degree,
commercial fishing.
Anglers are willing to make sacrifices for the betterment of the
resource, as long as they are confident that these sacrifices are based
on strong science and a true desire to improve the health of the
fisheries we enjoy. However, the closures being proposed in Biscayne
National Park--specifically the 10,522 acre marine reserve in the draft
General Management Plan preferred alternative--are not based on solid
fisheries management and seem to place undue blame for any and all
problems in the park on anglers and boaters.
The National Park Service will tell you that their proposed marine
reserve is small--only 7 percent of the park--but I can assure you that
the word ``small'' does not come close to describing the area at stake.
This 16 square mile closure covers some of the park's most popular and
productive fishing areas. The tremendous loss of fishing opportunity is
much more significant than the simple ``7 percent of the park'' figure
might lead one to believe.
The National Park Service will also tell you that they are
proposing this closure for reasons other than fisheries management, but
once you look a little deeper, that is clearly false. The National Park
Service claims in their draft General Management Plan that the proposed
marine reserve is intended to ``provide snorkelers and divers with the
opportunity to experience a healthy, natural coral reef, with larger
and more numerous tropical reef fish and an ecologically intact reef
system.'' However, restricting or prohibiting fishing in order to
protect fish habitat and rebuild fish stocks is inherently fisheries
management. Management of the park's fisheries resources is defined by
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate cooperative
management between the National Park Service and the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Over the last several decades,
the FWC has established itself as a leader in state fish and wildlife
management, particularly saltwater fisheries management, as evidenced
by its efforts to help bring back species such as snook, redfish, and
sailfish to their current sustainable levels. In the MOU, the FWC
states its position that ``marine reserves (no-take areas) are overly
restrictive and that less-restrictive management measures should be
implemented during the duration of this MOU.'' The FWC has stated
numerous times its believe that other, less restrictive management
measures than a marine reserve can and should be implemented in the
park to help rebuild the park's fisheries resources.
This conclusion was also reached by the park's Fishery Management
Plan Stakeholder Working group, which was formed by the park in 2004 to
develop recommendations on goals and actions the park's Fishery
Management Plan, and to comment and make recommendations on portions of
BNP's General Management Plan that are pertinent to fisheries. After
six months of meetings, the group, which consisted of commercial and
recreational fishers, divers, scientists and representatives of
environmental groups, produced recommendations included more
restrictive fishing regulations for certain species, species-specific
spawning closures and a mechanism to pay for improved enforcement and
education of park rules and regulations. Importantly the group
concluded that a marine reserve should only be established as measure
of last resort and only after all else had failed.
By proposing a marine reserve, the National Park Service is
ignoring the recommendations of the FWC and the stakeholder working
group. In doing so, it is casting aside professional and local
expertise of fisheries management and severing trust with the local
sportfishing community.
The National Park Service claims that this area will provide a
haven for snorkelers and divers, which will more than make up for the
lost angler trips and associated economic impacts, but I challenge the
National Park Service to explain how this will occur. According to Park
Superintendent Mark Lewis, there are only 15-20 mooring buoys for boats
to tie off on in the proposed marine reserve, where anchoring will not
be allowed. So all of these supposed divers and snorkelers the park is
counting on making up for lost fishing trips will only be able to
access the reserve from these 15 or 20 spots. In actuality, not only
will this area be closed to anglers, but the vast majority of it will
also be inaccessible to anyone else.
As is the case with coral reefs the world over, the reefs in
Biscayne National Park are facing numerous threats. However, the most
significant of these threats--ocean warming, disease and
acidification--cannot be addressed by simply closing areas to fishing.
Where recreational fishing is having an impact on reefs, there are
numerous less restrictive management approaches, like no-anchoring
areas and stronger species-by-species fishing regulations, which can be
put in place to mitigate fishing impacts.
The estimated impact of salt water fishing in the State of Florida
is approximately $15 billion annually. Closing local fisheries and
access to fisheries will substantially impact hundreds of livelihoods,
in our local economy and beyond. Given our current economy and the
recent difficult times we have just endured, any additional impact on
jobs would significantly affect our residents.
If the National Park Service's goal is to improve the park's
fisheries and habitat, there are other, less restrictive options that
could effectively rebuild and sustain the park's fisheries resources.
The National Park Service should step back from the proposed marine
reserve in the General Management Plan and instead work with the FWC
and local stakeholders to address these issues in the Fishery
Management Plan. By slowing this process down and reviewing the variety
of other tools available, I am confident that a plan can be reached
that addresses the resource challenges in the park while still allowing
the public to access the park's waters.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you this morning
and respectfully hope the voice of the people will be heard in
protecting livelihoods while working together to protect our beautiful
resources.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Curlett?
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CURLETT,
FLORIDA RESIDENT
Mr. Curlett. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Committee members,
and my soon-to-be Congressman, Congressman Rivera. And for what
it is worth, I am a third-generation member of the party of
Lincoln.
My name is John J. Curlett. My friends call me Jack. I am a
year-round resident of South Florida, North Key Largo to be
exact, and I have been there since 1984. I am a recreational
angler. I fish both offshore and inshore, I have managed
inshore and offshore sailfish tournaments, and I am here today
on my own dime.
We have talked about this 2005 working group. In 2005, when
Biscayne National Park first started the process of redrafting
the general management plan, which all parks are required to do
every 20 years, Biscayne National Park was also required to do
a fishery management plan that they shared the jurisdictional
responsibilities with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.
With agreement of both, and with the assistance of the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, a fishery
management plan working group was formed. That group is
comprised of two dozen stakeholders, along with some
environmental interests. And people say that we have ignored
that. Trust me, we haven't. I chaired that group.
During the same period of time, I also served on the boards
of Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, the Ocean Reef Rod and Gun Club,
and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory
Council. In fact, I am the recreational angling rep to the
Advisory Council. I still work in those same organizations
today, along with the South Florida National Parks Trust, which
encompasses Biscayne National Park; the Ocean Reef Conservation
Association; and the Wildlife Foundation of Florida. I do this
for one reason and one reason only: I want to make it a better
place going forward. And the things I want to make better are
the local habitat and the local fishery.
I am here today because I witnessed firsthand the
degradation of the local habitat and the depletion of the
fishery. We are here today because Biscayne National Park has
in its 2001 draft general management plan designated a small
area, 7 percent, 10,000 acres that we heard today, as a marine
reserve as the means to protect and reserve what is left of
that depleted habitat and fishery.
When Congress originally established the National Park
System, the intention was that the parks are to be protected
and preserved for the common benefit of all people of the
United States, not just any one single user group. To that end,
the national parks are held to a higher standard than other
Federally owned lands and bodies of water and, therefore, to a
higher degree of maintenance and management.
The last scientific assessment of the habitats in Biscayne
National Park was conducted by the University of Miami, the
RSMAS school, back in 1999. No one has mentioned that, but 13
years ago, fish stocks, 70 percent of the 35 individual fish
stocks, 70 percent were overfished and undersized. I mean, do
we have any reason to believe that 13 years later they have
gotten any better? You know, today we have better fish finders,
better bottom reading machinery, better GPS, better devices to
find, catch, locate, fish. And on top of that, the number of
recreational anglers has grown exponentially. I am a
recreational angler; I know that for a fact.
The main purpose of a marine reserve is not to
intentionally deny access to anyone, but it is to protect the
precious resources that are entrusted to the park's care, at
the same time offering rewarding experiences for all visitors,
including sightseers, boaters, snorkelers, divers, kayakers,
glass-bottom boat operators. Visitors from all around the
country and all over the globe visit Biscayne National Park,
and they expect to see something that resembles a national
park, not a terrestrial Bureau of Land Management piece of
property or just another body of water. They want to see an
aquatic Yellowstone or Yosemite. That is what they expect, and
that is what they deserve. Biscayne National Park is not there
solely for the enjoyment of local residents; it is there for
everyone, and that is why it is called a national park.
My experience in fishing and providing advice to the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary leaves me with the
recommendation that a marine reserve is the right tool at this
time. I keep hearing, oddly enough, from the Keys community,
and they are encouraging NOAA to increase the number and the
size of some of the similar RNAs, marine protected areas,
within the sanctuary.
Coincidentally, next month we are going to see the
scientific report from a research natural area at the Dry
Tortugas that was put together through a collaborative effort
from the National Park Service, NOAA, Florida Fish and
Wildlife, and the angling community--an agreement that took
years. And we have a 5-year report coming out. And I have
spoken to those scientists who did the before and are doing the
present, and we are going to see all sorts of fish size growth
and species increase. There is just so damn more of them.
Biscayne National Park is fortunate, and unfortunate, to be
right next to such a bustling metropolis, Miami. The great park
is accessible and available to millions, and unfortunately that
access takes its toll. The Park Service has the responsibility
to mitigate for such heavy use and to protect the resource. And
if we ever want to see it recover from the decades of damage it
has seen, they have to do that.
All told, I am supportive of a marine reserve in Biscayne
National Park as a means to protect this unique resource that
exists in my backyard and your backyard. I want my
grandchildren and their children and your grandchildren to be
able to enjoy this incredible resource.
I am Jack Curlett, and I am a recreational angler. You
know, for years I have had people come to the Keys and go out
on the water, have a great time, and say, ``Wow, I can't
believe it.'' I say, you know, ``You should have been here 25,
30 years ago. You wouldn't believe what it was like then.'' You
know, I have people say that to me whenever I say it as well,
``You should have been here.'' Wouldn't it be great if 25 years
from now----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Curlett, I need you to finish in a
sentence.
Mr. Curlett.--one of our kids says, ``You are so lucky that
my parents did something 25 years back''?
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curlett follows:]
Statement of John J. Curlett on
``Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks''
My name is John J. Curlett. My family, friends, and creditors call
me Jack. I am presently, and have been since 1984, a resident of South
Florida, North Key Largo exactly. I fish both offshore as well as
inshore. Literally, at my doorstep, I have the ability to fish in
either the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Everglades National
Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park or, why we are all here
today, Biscayne National Park. I am a recreational angler.
In 2005 when Biscayne National Park first started the process of
redrafting their General Management Plan, which all national parks are
required to do every twenty years, Biscayne National Park was also
required to draft a Fishery Management Plan, as they shared
jurisdictional responsibility of the park's waters with the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. With the agreement of both,
a Fishery Management Plan Working Group was formed with the assistance
of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Atmospheric
Association and that group was comprised of two dozen local
stakeholders and several environmental representatives. I chaired that
working group from January through September of 2005. During this same
period of time I also served on the boards of Bonefish and Tarpon
Trust, the Ocean Reef Rod and Club and the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary Advisory Council. I still work with those same organizations
today, along with the South Florida National Parks Trust, the Ocean
Reef Conservation Association and the Wildlife Foundation of Florida. I
do this for one reason. I want to help make things better, those things
being the local fishery, water and habitat. I am here today as I have
witnessed first hand the degradation of our local habitat and the
depletion of our fishery.
We are here today because Biscayne National Park has, in its 2011
draft General Management Plan, designated a small portion, seven
percent, of the park as a marine reserve.
When Congress originally established the National Park System the
intention was that it was to be preserved and protected for the common
benefit of all of the people of the United States, not just for any
single user group. To that end, national parks are held to a greater
standard than some other parcel of land or body of water and therefore
deserve a higher degree of maintenance and management. The last
scientific assessment of habitats and fish population in Biscayne
National Park was conducted by the University of Miami in 1999. Even
then, 13 years ago, it was found that 77% of the 35 individual fish
stocks that could be analyzed were overfished. Have we any reason to
believe 13 years later they have improved. Today we have better fish
finders and bottom reading machinery and better global positing devices
to catch fish. On top of that, the number of recreational anglers has
dramatically increased as well. I know, I am a recreational angler.
As I mentioned earlier, I serve on the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary Advisory Council. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
and Protection Act was signed into law in 1990. Since that time
numerous areas in the Sanctuary have been set aside as Sanctuary
Preservation Areas(SPAs) and Ecological Preserves. All of these, just
like the proposed Marine Protected Areas for Biscayne National Park are
open to everyone but uses are restrictive to non consumptive uses. At
first the local Monroe County residents were up in arms that they were
being denied fishing in this resource. I know. I was one of them. I am
a recreational fisherman. Over the past decade, like many other local
anglers, I have seen fish populations increase in and around these
SPAs, and as fish tend to swim and know no defined boundaries, they end
up populating nearby and adjacent reefs and habitat. Fishing around
these areas has never been better.
The main purpose of a marine reserve is not to intentionally deny
access to anyone but to protect the precious resources entrusted to the
park's care and at the same time offering rewarding experiences for all
visitors, including boaters, sightseers, anglers, snorkelers, divers,
kayakers, birders, and glass-bottom boat tour passengers. Visitors from
all around the country, and all over the globe, visit Biscayne National
Park and they expect to see something that resembles a national park,
not a terrestrial BLM piece of property or just another body of open
water. They want to see an aquatic Yellowstone, or a Yosemite. That is
what they expect and that is what they deserve. Biscayne National Park
is not there solely for the enjoyment of local residents. It is there
for everyone. That is why it is called a national park. That
responsibility is ours, yours and mine.
I stand here as one of the few if not the only resident of Florida
on this panel. I am an avid and regular angler of these waters. Anyone
who truly knows the waters of Biscayne National Park knows that the
reef is in serious danger of collapse. No conscientious angler would
agree that fishing in this area shouldn't be significantly curtailed.
Strong tools need to be used in this park if it is ever to recover the
reef coverage or fish numbers, species, and sizes that used to exist
here. Bag limits and catch sizes just won't matter in this area, as the
fish simply aren't there. A marine reserve is the most logical tool to
apply in this area. Indeed, during my chairmanship on the Fishery
Management Plan Working Group, we came very close to recommending a
marine reserve of approximately 9000 acres. This recommendation was
generated by the local stakeholders who sat on that committee, not a
bunch of extreme environmentalists who've never been to the park or had
a rod and reel in their hand.
My experience fishing in and providing advice to the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary leaves me with the recommendation that a
marine reserve is the right tool to use here. In fact, I keep hearing
from the community that they are encouraging NOAA to increase the
number and the size of these sites throughout the sanctuary.
These same results, I understand, are coming out of the marine
reserve, or Research Natural Area at Dry Tortugas National Park.
Indeed, through a collaborative process with the National Park Service,
NOAA, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the
angling community, we came to agreement over five years ago, after many
years of negotiation, that we needed to close an area in and around the
reefs in Dry Tortugas. The initial results are showing that fish sizes
are larger, there are more of them, and there is a wider variety of
species, too.
Biscayne National Park is in both the fortunate and unfortunate
situation of being right next to the bustling metropolis of Miami. This
great park is available and accessible to millions of people. That
access, though takes its toll. The park service has a responsibility to
mitigate for such heavy use to protect this resource if we ever want to
see it recover from the decades of damage that it has seen.
All told, I am supportive of a marine reserve to protect the
incredibly unique reef tract that exists in my backyard. I want my
grandkids kids and your grandkids to be able to see and enjoy this
incredible resource when they visit Miami.
______
Mr. Bishop. Now, questions for this panel. Mr. Jones, do
you want to start us off?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, that is very kind. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I want Mr. Judge or Mr. Couch to respond.
When I look at how this problem developed, it really angers me
for this reason: In 2005, the National Park Service initiated
negotiation rulemaking process with 26 groups, including the
citizens of Dare County. The negotiation rulemaking broke down
when environmental groups in 2006, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, walked away from the discussions. You had the Federal
Government, you had the people that pay the taxes coming
together to reach a compromise, and 3 of the 26 walked away--
the Southern Environmental Law Center, Audubon Society, and
Defenders of Wildlife.
Would you, Mr. Judge, or you, Mr. Couch, whichever one,
comment on what you almost had but you lost it?
Mr. Judge. Thank you, Congressman Jones, and I would be
glad to.
After almost 15 months of very intense 2- and 3-day
continuous meetings monthly or every other month, 20, 21
different entities representing access, from ORV to local
governments, which I represented, just that people have access
to the beaches, to pedestrian, to birdwatchers--after all this
time, in February of 2009, which turned out to be the last
day--it was not scheduled to be the last day, but all of a
sudden, the superintendent ruled it to be the last day--we put
a plan on the floor.
That plan had 19 votes in favor, 5 votes opposed. That plan
represented a huge shift from where the beach access caucuses
began all the way back in October of 2007 in their initial
positions. That plan had 19 votes for it, 5 votes against it.
The outfit that was hired by the Department of the Interior
to run the negotiated rulemaking process instituted a rule that
the only decision that would go forward would have to be
unanimous. So they ruled that plan as a--they ruled that vote
as a loss, that the vote failed.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Couch, will you share, with the minute and a
half that is left, the--isn't Dare County, out of 100 counties,
has the second-highest unemployment rate in the State of North
Carolina, somewhere around 19 percent?
Mr. Couch. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Obviously, Hatteras Island, Dare County, we are tourist-
based, and our numbers fluctuate. But since this beach access
fiasco, as indicated in my business--I used to do it with 10
full-time employees; now I am down to 6. I used to work 6 days
a week; now I am working 10 days a week just to make up for
those losses.
And this has just handcuffed it, as Mr. Judge has said, it
handcuffs our--we have no predictability other than what will
come in bird closures, thus stifling our economy.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say
that a gentleman who served in World War II that lives in Dare
County, that stormed the beaches of Omaha and later became
injured, who has enjoyed going out to fish down in Hatteras and
that area, that he has to have somebody carry him, he now
cannot get on the beach to fish because of the vehicle
situation, but yet he was willing to give his life for this
country. That is why this is an important hearing. And we must
find balance before it is too late. And the people of this
country have a right to those accesses.
So I thank you for letting me sit on the dais today.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Appreciate that. There may be other
rounds of questions if you want to stay.
Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Frost, in reference to 4094, if you could quickly, if
you have figures, that would be very useful. What was the
economic benefit of the park to the local area that we are
referencing today?
Mr. Frost. You want dollar figures?
Mr. Grijalva. Yeah.
Mr. Frost. I don't know if I have those numbers off the top
of my head. And I apologize. So I will have to get those
numbers for you.
Mr. Grijalva. We would appreciate that.
Mr. Grijalva. What is the plan for the ORV permit money?
Mr. Frost. The plan would cover the costs of implementing
the permit basically. It doesn't do anything else. So in terms
of, you know, the staff time that would be required to issue
the permits, help on law enforcement, help on resource
protection, it wouldn't go into any other operational sort of
thing for the park. It would just be used to cover the
operational expenses of implementing the permit system.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Commissioner Judge, in your
testimony, you claim that the park's new ORV policy has
destroyed the economies of the community by limiting or cutting
the access to the park.
Let me get some points of clarification if I may,
Commissioner. In the 2009 Dare County tax report, which was
issued following the impact of the consent decree, stated that
the community had fared well and experiences a revenue
reduction of 0.53. Is that figure correct?
Mr. Judge. That is macroeconomics for the county of Dare.
The county of Dare reaches from the Dare County Currituck line
to the Hatteras inlet, approximately 93 or 94 miles. We have
thousands of homes that stretch from that area.
Mr. Grijalva. So overall it is 0.53?
Mr. Judge. Yes, sir. But that is the entire county. It
doesn't talk about the villages of Buxton and Frisco and Avon
specifically.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And that same report stated that
expected growth rate would be 6 to 8 percent overall in the
county, correct?
Mr. Judge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Occupancy of campgrounds, cottages, motels,
as measured and reported by Dare County on its tax report,
appears to have increased since the emergency ORV restrictions
were put in place.
Mr. Judge. The economy of Dare County, the commerce of
tourism has enjoyed growth over the years because of the family
destination that we are. But again, you are looking at a
countywide figure. That doesn't break out and talk about the
impact on the businesses in the villages of Hatteras Island
which is inside the Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreational Area.
Mr. Grijalva. The consent decree agreed to by the lawyers
in your community and particularly negotiated by your county
attorney, your group signed the paperwork that ended the first
lawsuit; that is correct, right?
Mr. Judge. Part of that statement, I would like to
challenge, and that is that our county attorney--I don't think
any of y'all, if you knew the facts, would agree that he in any
way handled negotiations. In fact, it was after he came home
after the first round of negotiations in Raleigh with the
special interest groups and the U.S. attorney, that we released
a press release that we were pretty much cut out of the
process. Shining the light of day on the process grew their
anger, and he was told what the deal was going to be. And, yes,
I along with my six other colleagues, we did sign a consent
decree; as my colleague Alan Burr said, we chose to be shot in
our foot and not in our head.
Mr. Grijalva. And Commissioner, one of the things that I
understand is a significant threat to the beach nesting
wildlife at the seashore, especially on Harris Island, are the
feral cat colonies. And just for my own edification, I know
that the Commissioner and Dare County is concerned about that,
concerned about the wildlife. What is being done to address
that very dangerous situation with feral cats and the wildlife?
Mr. Judge. I don't know that I can speak to how--the
National Park Service shoots animals in the National Park
Service. I really can't address in the national park--I am not
an expert on that, other than we know that they kill a bunch of
them.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Well, there may be some other rounds here,
if you want to follow up on that question at another time. I am
going to have to leave in a few minutes. And the good
Congressman from Florida will take over from here. So let me
ask a couple of questions just before I go. Usually I try to go
at the end. And I apologize for that.
Commissioner Wright, if I could ask you to very briefly
tell me about the MOU that Florida Fish and Wildlife has with
the Park Service and why it is relevant in this situation.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The MOU is up, in
fact, to expire in this coming September. But that memorandum
of understanding is between the Park Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Commission, entered into and, quite frankly, we were
concerned--my predecessors on the Commission were concerned
about the possibility of no-access areas being created. And
there is specific language in the MOU that provides that no-
access areas would not be used for purposes of fisheries
management.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Wright. And we are the agency that does fisheries.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. And I will ask Mr. Rivera to
follow up on that concept with me at some time.
Mr. Judge, as I understand it, there was a lawsuit that
dealt with this. Was that lawsuit ever adjudicated?
Mr. Judge. No. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So you did a consent? You cut a deal in some
way?
Mr. Judge. The U.S. attorney and Southern Environmental Law
Center, representing their clients, cut the deal. We were
defended interveners.
Mr. Bishop. So let me see if I get this right. And this is
not necessarily a question, Mr. Frost. It is a frustration I
have with the entire Department of the Interior that keeps
touting their wanting to do common sense and this doesn't seem
like common sense.
The economic study you did that was purported in here took
care of the entire county, but did not deal with the areas that
are most impacted by this piece of property. You created a
buffer zone that is far greater than any other buffer zones we
have seen for certain purposes. We have--the Department of the
Interior ignored local concerns and local input. There was a
lawsuit that was never adjudicated by a court. Instead, you cut
a deal before it ever happened, which even if that deal was
appropriated, smells once again of political decisions being
made outside of court to try and do some kind of political
agenda.
Good grief, this is a recreation area. And the only thing
you seem to be prohibiting is recreation. It does not make
sense. And I can understand why the people of North Carolina
are so upset about that. When you have specific requirements in
there that simply tell people--what is the verbiage you have
there? Shoreline open to restricted pedestrian access. Leave no
footprints behind. Walk in water where footprints wash away. No
vehicles. No pets. No kites.
No wonder when States in the West want to take back Federal
land, they don't want Park Service land because it doesn't
produce any revenue, because the Park Service has an attitude
that makes it unfriendly and unpopular and disinviting for
people to actually welcome it and to go there. This is a
recreation area. It should be a primary concern.
So what the Park Service has done--and this one is totally
inconsistent with reality. It defies common sense, and it is
simply inappropriate. And I thank Representative Jones for
introducing this legislation, because somehow someone has got
to bring reality back to the Department of the Interior, which
seems to be devoid of that very concept. And fortunately, I
hope we don't do the same mistake in Florida, which is why this
oversight hearing is here.
Obviously what the local people are telling you is you are
marching along a path that is going to lead to another conflict
again, and hopefully you will make decisions ahead of that time
that don't send you down to a wrong decision. Get local input
in there. I have always said that I really trust the people on
the ground back in the State because they understand the
situation. It seems as soon as you go up the food chain here,
all of a sudden arbitrary decisions are made often. And once
again, a lot of those decisions are made by consent decrees
where a case is not being adjudicated, simply the Department is
a making a deal outside of court and then saying, well that is
what we have to do because that is the way the process works.
I am sorry. This looks wrong. It smells wrong. It is bad.
And once again, I realize you are not the decision maker there.
But Mr. Frost, when you go back to your colleagues, tell them
once again they have screwed up. Fix it. And I yield back.
Mr. Rivera, if you will take my place. And I think it is
fair to say, Mr. Rivera, you have not had a chance to ask any
questions. Please feel free to take that opportunity and then
we will give Mr. Grijalva a second round here.
Mr. Rivera. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am
actually going to yield to Representative Jones my time so we
can continue on the Cape Hatteras issue and then Mr. Grijalva
as well. Representative Jones, you are recognized.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And I want to say that if you knew Dare County well, you
would understand that they are two different worlds. The upper
part of Dare County is where you have Kill Devil Hills, you
have the areas where the Wright brothers took off for the first
flight. That is where the people are going. They go down to
where these people live because that is where they can fish. It
is two different worlds. It is two different economies, quite
frankly.
And I want Mr. Judge or Mr. Couch to speak to the fact that
the two different worlds--and they are so different, it is
almost unbelievable; the same wonderful people, but most of the
people that have moved from the north and the west to Dare
County end up living in the northern part of the county--excuse
me, Mr. Chairman--but the southern part of the county is where
these people are coming from, and it is their economy that is
collapsing, thanks to the Park Service who, in 2005 said, We
want to work with you. We want to see this work. But all of a
sudden when the lawsuits came, they just changed their whole
attitude. And I agree with the Chairman's words. So if you
don't mind, if Mr. Couch or Mr. Judge could speak on the two
different worlds.
Mr. Couch. Thank you, Congressman Jones. There are two
important things I would like to go ahead and mention. Tomorrow
there is a fishing tournament. It is an individual surf fishing
tournament, sponsored by Four Plus out of Richmond, Virginia.
It takes in 600 individual contestants for a 24-hour
tournament, and it limits it to 600 people. Last year, it
dipped to 550. As of yesterday, it has a total enrollment of
373. We have a fishing tournament in the fall which is done by
Capital City out of Richmond, Virginia. It will most likely be
the same thing.
When the Park Service closes down Cape Point, which is
right at my backdoor, last year it closed before April 1 and
stayed closed all the way until August. Those people in our
businesses that are around that entrance into that ramp, we
suffered greatly. Those people who want to go to Cape Point but
can't because a threatened species has 1,000 meters worth of
protection all the way around it, that business goes elsewhere,
and we are denied that until August. And these things can be
easily fixed if the Park Service would listen. Warren?
Mr. Judge. Thank you, Congressman. And that is a very good
question, a very good point. Hatteras Island is the vacation
land for not only the people that stay on Hatteras Island but
the people that stay north of Oregon and for residents of Dare
County. There are two extremely valuable areas in the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore. One is the Oregon inlet spit, which
we have no more access there, and that is one of the greatest
places to go on the backside of that spit and take your little
children, your families. People would cook out. They would
spend a day picnicking. And the kids could wade in tidal water
that was calm and safe for them. Parents could have a great
family experience. The other place is South Beach, just
adjacent to the geographical area that John was talking about,
just to the west of Cape Point, again, one of the greatest
beaches for people to go to enjoy safer waters from the ocean's
edge, and it is where we go. It is where the resident goes as
well as the tourist.
And Congressman, a very important point here. We talk about
all these miles, and the special interest groups are going to
argue one point and we are going to have another point. The
Park Service has even another point. The Park Service developed
this beach access by vehicle. There are 11 accesses from Oregon
inlet to Hatteras inlet. There are 805 parking spaces. Unless
you can afford to own and rent an ocean-front house or own it,
you have to drive to the beach. That is how it was developed.
There are 805 parking spaces. And you have to be an athlete to
park in one of those parking spaces and make it to the beach.
We eliminate children. We eliminate the elderly. We eliminate
the handicapped under this rule.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rivera. Representative Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Couch, in your
testimony--and you are trying to make the case for the
economics of small business in your testimony. Your testimony
puts almost the entire blame on reduced access to the small
part of the area as the cause for that business drop. The park,
as I understand it, has consistently seen an increase in
visitation over the last 5 years. Occupancy rates have also
increased, climbing to record levels in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.
Dare County has also, if I may--and I want to know what
that impact has had on small businesses--has also made choices
to impact your small business and others, including allowing
several box stores like Home Depot to be built, increasing the
footprint of Wal-Mart. And you know the history of Wal-Mart is
as they grow, and they are able to undercut, and the price is
lower and the choice is greater, businesses that used to do the
same thing that is now in that big box began to disappear in
local and smaller communities.
There have also been zoning regulations that have been
changed. This recession has been the worst in 80 years.
Hurricane Irene hit the island. People have cut back on
personal spending. So how would you categorize all those
economic impacts relative to the influence that the park is
having in terms of the access issue?
Mr. Couch. Thank you for your question. Home Depot, Kmart,
Wal-Mart the new Lowe's is about 89 miles from my door. I
certainly can't go there and get back in time for lunch. It is
an all-day trip. The figures that are typically given in
response to our concerns are for the more populated areas of
Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, and certainly not Hatteras
Island, and also includes Ocracoke Island, one of the poorest
counties within the national seashore. There are eight villages
that live within the seashore. People have to come in to us.
And we are dictated by the Park Service with this ORV rule of
when and where and how business is going to be conducted. We
can't go ahead and expect that. When you come on to Hatteras
Island, you come across Bonner Bridge and you go down through
Pea Island Wildlife Refuge, which is 13 miles, and then there
is another additional six to seven miles before you can even go
ahead and access the beach by ORVs.
And ORVs is getting a bad name. This is just motorized
access. It enables my children, my grandchildren, and my
elderly relatives, so I can take them to the beach and we can
sit there all day long.
Mr. Grijalva. That part was part of your initial testimony
and I appreciate that.
Mr. Couch. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Just one more question if I may, Mr. Couch.
Your organization was an intervener on behalf of the park
during the 2008 lawsuit. Your group signed off on the consent
decree; correct or incorrect?
Mr. Couch. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. And now the plan is not exactly what you
want. So your group is now countersuing for that open access?
Mr. Couch. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. And as the process goes forward, you know,
the population of Dare County is about 35,000 people, if I am
not mistaken. That was the commissioner's testimony. In the
summer it goes up to 100,000. Any public safety issues that you
see on those beaches, now that you are commenting on that for
the long haul, when people and vehicles collide?
Mr. Couch. No. I don't characterize it that way. It is not
certainly a safety issue. I would certainly like to go ahead
and see what type of statistics are being used for somehow some
sort of safety measures, when there is to my knowledge no data
to support that. But we have a situation down there where these
closures--and I kind of get back to this--when they put 1,000
meters around an area for a bird and then it closes off areas
that are otherwise open but you can't get to.
And these numbers of the economy, they don't sustain those
for Cape Hatteras, Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate it, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I am going to yield a
minute or so of my time to Representative Jones.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And this will be my
close in a way. You have been very gracious.
I want to ask about the zoning of box stores in the county.
And that would go to Mr. Judge. And then I would like if there
would be some response to what the Ranking Member was saying
about the safety issue.
Mr. Judge. Thank you, Congressman Jones. Dare County, the
zoning in the stores that the Ranking Member asked about are--
although they are in Dare County, they are not in Dare County's
governmental jurisdiction. They are in the towns of Kill Devil
Hills and Kitty Hawk. Years ago, Dare County zoned--we put a
limit size on big box stores. I believe the most you can have
is 20,000 square feet. We did it in conjunction with our land
use plan. Our land use plan specifically speaks to the
nurturing and the reinforcement and the continued development
of our mom-and-pop businesses.
The only thing you can build bigger than 20,000 square feet
in unincorporated Dare County would be a hotel or a motel, if
it was in a properly zoned--if it was in a correctly zoned part
of the county.
As far as public safety, I am unaware of any public safety
issues. The Park Service has an outstanding force of rangers.
They have a great relationship with the Dare County Sheriff's
Department. We have seven volunteer fire departments on
Hatteras Island that all participate in ocean rescue and are
trained in that way. We have an independent village EMS service
that is an adjunct to the Dare County EMS Service. Here again,
they are very well trained on water rescue and those types of
things.
So I am unaware of--that is not to say that the ranger
won't arrest somebody tomorrow for a traffic violation on the
beach. It is not to say that there might be an injury on the
beach or whatnot. We are certainly not free of any sort of
problems. But I know of no public safety issues that should be
of concern should H.R. 4094 be adopted.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, in closing, again I thank you and
the Ranking Member. If you really would go back and just see,
when they try to work a plan out and the stakeholders came
together with the exception of four or five, and when you look
at the fact that, again, these are two different worlds, I
cannot stress that enough. You go from the growing area of Dare
County where people are moving in with money, buying the big
homes and everything. And you go down over the bridge and you
go down to Rodanthe, Buxton, and Hatteras and those areas, it
is wonderful but it is two different worlds. And their economy
is strictly and only succeeds because people come to that part
of Dare County. And if they stop coming and they half the
people that are coming now, then it won't be but so long before
these small businesses that are independently owned, they will
go out of business.
That is why we need to find common sense with the
government and the people who pay the taxes of those of us who
work for the government. And we need to understand, we are
public servants. Public servants need to find compromise.
Extremism will ruin this Nation. This is a prime example. This
is what is going to happen to the southern part of Dare County
if we don't help them out. Thank you for this time.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much. I am actually going to
yield back the remainder of my time on this round. And we still
have some questions on Cape Hatteras so we will go to Mr.
Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Dr. Frost, Biscayne, a couple of oversight
questions. One question: Through the testimony we have heard
relative to that, the impression one gets is that this process
has been in the dark, that there has been no transparency, that
people don't know that they had limited to no input, that the
public comment period was limited. How many public meetings
have you had?
Mr. Frost. I think there were three public meetings over
the course of 3 or 4 years.
Mr. Grijalva. And how many comments have you received?
Mr. Frost. I think somewhere around 18,000.
Mr. Grijalva. And how would you categorize those comments?
Mr. Frost. Most of those comments are in support of the
marine reserve or establishing a marine reserve.
Mr. Grijalva. And Mr. Curlett, thank you for your
testimony. Are people in the angling community supportive of
the reserve? And if you could briefly--because I have other
follow-up questions on this--if you could briefly tell me why.
Mr. Curlett. Well as I started to say earlier, we have
several reserves in the Keys. And we have had them there for--
starting 20 years ago in 1990. I fought them 20 years ago. I
was dead set against them. I was on the Sanctuary Advisory
Council to be the other side. And after serving on the Council
over the past 8 years, I see them work. I have seen them work
in the Dry Tortugas, and I have seen them work right in front
of my house off of Carysfort Reef. Biscayne National Park is an
intensive care patient. You don't give it two aspirins and send
it home. It needs something a little bit more dramatic,
unfortunately.
Mr. Grijalva. And the reserve is----
Mr. Curlett. The reserve is it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Wright--and thank you for your
testimony as well.
Counsel, the MOU that we have been referencing was signed
in 2002 and again in 2007. You were not a member of the
Commission until August of that year; is that correct?
Mr. Wright. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. So let me ask, the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission, what science does it use to make their decisions to
continue sustainability of their fisheries and to make those
vital decisions that you, under the MOU, have that prerogative?
Mr. Wright. I am glad you asked that question. Our research
institute is world famous. We regulate our fisheries not by
intuition or guesswork, or certainly not by referendum, but we
regulate by science. We have scientists that are renowned for
the fisheries management that we do. We have brought back red
fish from the brink of extinction. We manage down to the point
of scientifically determining the spawning potential ratio of
surviving fish after a sustainable catch. And that is the kind
of science that we think ought to be at least looked at in this
instance before we go to an absolute closure.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And let me in reference to the
science--and I think that is very important. And if more
decisions were made on science, in fact, we would be a lot
better off, all of us collectively.
The Port of Miami is pursuing a big expansion to attract
those big freighters that are going to be expected to arrive
from Asia when the Panama Canal gets widened. That is supposed
to be completed in 2014. There is opposition from the
environmentalists and anglers over the impact on species and
the coral reef. Yet your organization, the Commission, has
voiced support for allowing there to be 600 no fishing days
with this new work. You see that as a valid action; yet
creating the marine reserve zone to protect activity such as
scuba diving is not valid? How do you reconcile those two?
Mr. Wright. Well, because there is a scientific basis for
the reconciliation. There has been a comparison to the Dry
Tortugas closure to the one proposed in Biscayne National Park.
The Dry Tortugas, by comparison that area is, number one,
extremely remote and it encompasses 400 square nautical miles.
The area that is being proposed for closure is literally within
the outskirts of Miami and, by comparison, constitutes only 16
square miles. The ability to manage 400 square miles from a
closure as opposed to 16 is overwhelming.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that, counsel. And with that,
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. And I yield back.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
First, let me ask for unanimous consent to include into the
record statements submitted by Tom Davidson of the Bonefish
Tarp and Trust and Bruce Popham of Marathon Boat Yard Marine
Center who support the Service's proposal.
And in opposition, I would like to submit statements from
Carl Liederman of Captain Harry's Fishing Supply Company;
Jefferson Angers, President of the Center for Coastal
Conservation; Joe Neber of Contender Boats Incorporated; Don
Waters, a Florida State spearfishing champion with over 40
years of experience in diving and fishing in the park; Karl
Wickstrom, the founder of Florida Sportsmen; and Rob Southwick,
President of Southwick Associates, which conducted a
socioeconomic impact study of the Service's proposal.
I also have a letter to Secretary Salazar from both of
Florida's Senators, Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Marco
Rubio, that was sent yesterday in opposition to the Park
Service's proposal. So, without objection, I would like to ask
that these be included in the record. Seeing no objection.
Now to my questions. Biscayne National Park is the largest
marine park in the National Park System. My constituents visit
the park for all the recreational activities available there. A
large component of these activities is recreational fishing,
which supports and sustains angling and angling-related jobs in
South Florida. A healthy fishery is vital to these businesses,
and we should work on conserving these natural resources and
certainly not locking them up.
Just to offer a few statistics, Florida's approximately 2
million saltwater anglers annually contribute approximately $3
billion in retail sales, 50,000 jobs, and over $345 million in
State and local tax revenues. Similarly, the boating industry
supplies over 200,000 jobs and over $16 billion in economic
impact statewide each year, with a substantial portion of that
economic output occurring in South Florida.
Now in their letter, Senators Nelson and Rubio say, quote,
the measures proposed in the Park Service plan represent the
most extreme tools available for making fishery management
modifications to Biscayne National Park, ignoring alternative
ways to achieve the desired resource improvements without
sacrificing the public's ability to access and enjoy the park,
unquote.
The Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan Working
Group--and Mr. Curlett, you are the chairman of the working
group--in their capacity to consult on the fisheries portion of
the park's general management plan, did not include
implementing marine reserves or no-take zones within the park
in their final recommendations. However, the Park Service, in
their preferred alternative plan, plan four, does include a
marine reserve.
So first, Mr. Frost, the Service went against the
recommendation of the working group?
Mr. Frost. Well, the working group was dealing primarily
with fishery issues and a fishery management plan. The GMP is a
much broader document and it looks at all aspects of how we
manage a national park. And as part of the MOU, we mentioned in
the MOU that while we weren't going to look at marine reserves
in the fisheries management plan, we reserved the right to look
at a marine reserve as part of the larger GMP process. So if
you read the GMP in its entirety, it is really not just about
fishing. It is about visitor use and visitor experience.
So Biscayne was established to provide a variety of visitor
experiences. People like to come there to snorkel. They like to
come to scuba dive. They come to watch wildlife. They come just
to hang out and be quiet. And then they come to fish. So there
is a variety of users.
So the GMP is trying to make those visitor experiences to
everyone available. So what the marine reserve is going to do
is, while it will restrict fishing in that 7 percent of the
park, it is not going to restrict anything else. Boats are
still going to be able to go into that area. They are going to
be able to tie up to moorings. They are going to be able to
dive. They are going to be able to snorkel. They are going to
be able to swim in the water. So it is just that--we are trying
to--but at the same time, by doing that, we are going to allow
that fisheries to recoup. And what that is going to provide is,
it is going to provide sort of a respite from the pressure of
the fishing. And those fish along the coral reef, they are
going to grow and they are going to be bigger, and that is what
people want to see. They want to come and see big fish. And as
a result, as that happens over time, those fish are going to
spill out and it is going to be available for fisheries
options, too.
Mr. Rivera. Well, you really read my mind in terms of that
distinction between the GMP and a fishery management plan. So
let me ask you specifically: I believe in the memorandum of
understanding which the Service has with the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, all fisheries within the park
will be governed cooperatively with the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission in a fishery management plan, not a general
management plan.
So why is the Park Service placing fishery management
issues in the general management plan and not the fishery
management plan? And how is that consistent with the MOU?
Mr. Frost. Well, again, as I stated previously, the general
management plan is looking at visitor use primarily. And as
sort of a side thing for visitor use, trying to enhance those
recreational opportunities, you are going to get some fisheries
benefit. The GMP is not trying to regulate a fisheries there.
It is really about, how do we operate a park to provide a broad
opportunity for all visitors--not just one subset of visitors
but all visitors--an opportunity to experience the park the way
it was envisioned when it was created back in the 1960s?
Mr. Rivera. Well, let me ask Mr. Wright. In Mr. Popham's
statement in support of the park's proposals, he brings up the
protected areas in Dry Tortugas National Park, which you
mentioned earlier. I guess, first, I would like you to comment
on Mr. Frost's comments just now but also--I know you mentioned
it earlier--but briefly compare and contrast Dry Tortugas
National Park and Biscayne National Park.
Mr. Wright. Let me take the latter first, if I can, Mr.
Chairman. First of all, there is no scientific basis for the
almost intuitive assumption, if you will, that by closing an
area within the Biscayne National Park that there are going to
be, quote, big fish and that big fish will migrate from that
and will enhance fishing opportunities surrounding that area.
There simply is no--I am not saying that that is an incorrect
statement. I am saying that I have consulted with my staff, and
I am being told there is no scientific basis to make that
statement. And, of course, then there is no scientific basis
for the closure that is based on that assumption.
With regard to taking an area and enhancing the
experience----
Mr. Rivera. Before you go there, can you also briefly
describe the consultation the Service had with the Commission
on Dry Tortugas and what you were just talking about, the
comparison between Dry Tortugas and Biscayne National Park? Was
there any consultation?
Mr. Wright. There was a consultation, and we supported
that. That is a completely different ecosystem. It was impacted
and was to benefit in that closure, if you will, because of the
very distinct stresses upon it. But it is remote from
activities. As I indicate, it is 200 square miles as opposed to
16 square miles. There were a lot of reasons why, based on the
science and based on the recommendation of our scientists, we
did support that.
But we do not support this one. And we do not believe that
there should be a closure denying anglers an opportunity; and,
if you will, at their expense providing an opportunity for
others. We have found, the Commission has found that the
resource can be managed effectively and access can be granted
to all persons but not necessarily to exclusive groups.
Mr. Rivera. And did you want to comment at all on any of
the earlier comments from Mr. Frost on the use?
Mr. Wright. Well, on the use--well, on the use issue, that
is what I was speaking to, Congressman. We, as a Commission,
regulate fisheries and have historically regulated them while
providing the most protection with the least regulation. It is
my belief as a commissioner--and I speak for my Commission and
for our staff--that there are many other successful tools in
our toolbox to regulate this area in consultation with the Park
Service for the goals that they claim they want to achieve
without leaping directly to the most draconian measure, which
is a closure of use or limitation of use.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Frost, have you consulted with the Florida
Fish and Wildlife out at Biscayne National Park? And how is
their input incorporated?
Mr. Frost. Yes. I know that our superintendent and our
regional director just met recently with staff from the Florida
Fish and Game Commission. And the bottom line is we need the
State Fish and Game agencies to work closely with us. And we
want to continue to reach out to the Commission and to the
staff to continue the dialogue.
The thing we have to remember is we haven't made a
decision. This is a proposal. We are continuing to have those
discussions. We want to have additional discussions before the
plan becomes final. So we absolutely have reached out and we
are going to continue to reach out before the plan becomes
finalized later this year.
Mr. Rivera. Let me go directly there to these proposals. I
see in alternatives 3 and 5, you included a permit zone in a
northwest portion of the park. My understanding is that anglers
would have been required to purchase a permit to fish in those
waters. Instead of a marine reserve, would the Service consider
this proposal for the reserve no-take zones in alternative 4?
First question. And perhaps ban fishing for specific species
seasonally during their spawning periods? I have been told that
enforcement has been a problem in the past. Perhaps funds
generated from the permits or fines or infractions can be used
for increased patrols and inspectors, so have less intrusive
proposals like this that have been studied and evaluated?
Mr. Frost. Absolutely. I mean, as you stated in the other
alternatives, we haven't evaluated those alternatives. And we
have to be a little bit careful because we don't want to be
predecisional and sort of mess up the NEPA process. But we have
heard all the comments and we are considering them. So
absolutely, we are going to look at those options and see how
we can make the best decision possible in the final general
management plan.
Mr. Rivera. In meetings I have had with Parks Director Mark
Lewis, I have been told that anglers do not even fish in the
proposed marine preserve. So can you provide the Committee,
within the next week, with any surveys or studies the Service
has done to come to this determination and the methodology of
that survey?
Mr. Frost. We will provide you whatever we have,
absolutely.
Mr. Rivera. Let me ask Mr. Crook, since you gave your
testimony earlier, any thoughts that you may have regarding
anything you have heard today from the Park Service or anyone
else?
Mr. Crook. Yes. I would like to make sort of a summary
comment. As to the use of the park, Superintendent Mark Lewis
mentions 15 to 20 moorings with no anchoring. This is so far
away from the current use that enhanced use of the park and the
benefits that it provides don't seem to be consistent.
In the case of the coral reefs, we have to look at the
numerous threats that are happening all over the world. And it
is not just angling. We have disease. We have warming,
acidification, and we have environmental issues that took place
30, 40, 50 years ago that are probably a major effect on the
fisheries over the last 10, 20 years.
When I was growing up, about a mile north of the Feather
Beds Banks, you could no longer see the bottom of the bay.
Today you can see the bottom of the bay almost to the
Rickenbacker Causeway. The water cleanliness, the water quality
is a major issue as to what happened to the park.
I contend that when the University of Miami in 1999 said
fish stocks were down, I would not dispute that. And I say this
from a common user's point of view, not a scientist, not an
enforcement agency or some fisheries commission, but from our
customers, the people that are with us. The quality of the
water today is better. That will start to generate a habitat.
The grass beds are better in the north bay. It will improve the
habitat that is in the park. And over time--and I can talk
almost to an angler, to a charter boat guy, and probably to
most law enforcement, there is better fishery today than there
was 10 or 15 years ago.
There are issues, and we can get into species specifics,
that will tell you there are exceptions to what I have just
said. And I would not deny that. But that falls back to fish
management. It is an ongoing effort that needs to be made. Just
stripping access and making closures is not the answer.
The economic impact--I was talking to a charter boat guy.
If we start making closures, the amount of dollars that they
generate, it doesn't just go to the chapter captain, the
charter boat. It goes to the suppliers of products he needs, it
goes to his crew who earn livelihoods from it, the people he
buys stuff, there are livelihoods at stake.
So to date, the fishing establishments in Miami have
decreased severely over the last 5 years under current economic
conditions. If we further reduce the economic value which
fishing brings to South Florida, we are going to affect more
livelihoods.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Curlett, do
you have any final thoughts?
Mr. Curlett. Congressman Rivera, if I might, two things.
You hit on the Fishery Management Plan Working Group and not
coming to a decision to close, have an RNA. They didn't have a
decision not to have one. In fact, we were told we could not
have one under that MOU. We were scheduled for five meetings.
We had to have a sixth meeting because we started pushing on
that. I said ``we.'' The group did. The stakeholders did, from
Bill Curtis who had fished that resource for 60 years and would
tell you that there is nowhere near the fish there today that
there were 60 years ago. And we had a sixth meeting and we were
that many votes away from agreeing to an 8,500-acre RNA in the
park. So the Fisheries Management Group did kick it around.
Second, it is in your testimony that there are other tools
in the box to use. The fishery was depleted, the last
scientific report in 1999; where the heck are the tools? The
tools have been there, the same tools. What tools have been
used to bring it back? Once again, this is a patient on life
support. Giving it a couple aspirins and sending it home and
saying, we will look at you tomorrow, is not going to work. I
fish there. I live within a 5-mile ride of the Carysfort no-
take zone. I see the success story there. I am a recreational
angler.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
Chairman for holding this hearing on a very important issue
that affects the real lives of a lot of people, both in North
Carolina and in Florida and, really, for the Nation.
I think Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Diaz-
Balart, Congressman Jones, were very prescient in their
comments to note the real impact that this has on our fisheries
and on our economy.
I want to thank the panelists as well. Thank all of you for
being here and for your time and effort. I look forward to
receiving information from the Park Service as we go forward.
I would like to note that members of the Subcommittee may
have additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that
you please respond to these in writing. The hearing record will
be open for 10 days to receive these responses.
Mr. Rivera. And if there is no further business, without
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Documents Submitted for the Record for H.R. 4094
The following documents submitted by The Honorable Walter B. Jones,
Jr., in support of H.R. 4094 have been retained in the Committee's
official files.
AFFIDAVIT, State of North Carolina, County of Dare
Allegro, Peter, Secretary, Rhode Island Mobile Sportsmen
Inc., Letter submitted for the record
American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S. LLC, Center
for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, and International Game Fish
Association, Letter submitted for the record
Conk, Gary L., Director, New Jersey Beach Buggy
Association, Letter submitted for the record
Correia, Bill, Vice President, Massachusetts Beach Buggy
Association, Letter submitted for the record
Eakes, Bob, President, Red Drum Tackle Shop, Inc., Letter
submitted for the record
Gilliland, Reb, New Jersey Beach Buggy Association,
Letter submitted for the record
Hardham, Lawrence, Letter submitted for the record
Hyde County, North Carolina, Resolution submitted for the
record
Joyner, David K., President, North Carolina Beach Buggy
Association, Letter submitted for the record
Judge, Warren C., Chairman, County of Dare Board of
Commissioners, Letter submitted for the record
Spear, Hon. Timothy L., State Representative, North
Carolina General Assembly, Letter submitted for the record
Taylor, Douglas A., Secretary, Jersey Devils Fish Club,
Letter submitted for the record
White, Hon. Stan M., State Senator, North Carolina
General Assembly, Letter submitted for the record
Documents submitted for the record for the Oversight Hearing on
``Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks''
Angers, Jefferson, Center for Coastal Conservation,
Letter submitted for the record
Curlett, John, North Key Largo, Florida, Letter submitted
for the record
Davidson, Tom, Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, Letter
submitted for the record
Liederman, Carl, Capt. Harry's Fishing Supply Co., Inc.,
Letter submitted for the record
Neber, Joe, Contender Boats, Inc., Letter submitted for
the record
Nelson, Hon. Bill and Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senators,
Letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar submitted for the
record
Popham, Bruce, Marathon Boat Yard Marine Center, Letter
submitted for the record
South Beach Dive and Surf, Grove Scuba, Aquatic
Explorers, Underwater Archaeology Program, Tennessee Aquatic Project
and Development Group, National Association of Black Scuba Divers,
History of Diving Museum, Tarpoon Lagoon Dive Center, and Beneath The
Sea, Inc., Letter submitted for the record
Southwick, Rob, Southwick Association, Letter submitted
for the record
Waters, Don M., Sr., Palmetto Bay, Florida, Letter
submitted for the record
Wickstrom, Karl, Florida Sportsman, Letter submitted for
the record
Youngman, Julia F., Southern Environmental Law Center,
Letter, statement, fact sheet and photographs submitted for the record