[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 588, VIETNAM VETERANS DONOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT ACT OF 2013; H.R. 716,
TO DIRECT DOI TO CONVEY CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND TO THE CITY OF VANCOUVER,
WASHINGTON; AND H.R. 819, PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL
SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA ACT
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 14, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-967 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 Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Mark E. Amodei, NV Steven A. Horsford, NV
Chris Stewart, UT Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 14, 2013......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah, Prepared statement of............................. 1
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress for the State
of Alaska.................................................. 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 588........................... 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Carter, Derb. S., Jr., Director, Chapel Hill Office, Southern
Environmental Law Center................................... 57
Prepared statement on H.R. 819........................... 59
Frost, Dr. Herbert C., Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 588........................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 716........................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 819........................... 13
Herrera Beutler, Hon. Jaime, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington............................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 716........................... 4
Jones, Hon. Walter B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 819........................... 7
Judge, Warren, Chairman, Dare County Board of Commissioners,
County of Dare, North Carolina............................. 47
Prepared statement on H.R. 819........................... 49
Questions submitted for the record to.................... 56
Scruggs, Jan D., Esq., President, Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Fund....................................................... 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 588........................... 17
Strahan, Elson, President and CEO, Fort Vancouver National
Trust...................................................... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 716........................... 25
Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 716.............. 28
Questions submitted for the record to.................... 32
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bader, Jeanette M., M.P.A., Program & Policy Development
Manager, City of Vancouver, Washington, Letter submitted
for the record on H.R. 716................................. 72
Cook, Senator Bill, District 1, North Carolina General
Assembly, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 819...... 70
County of Currituck, Statement submitted for the record on
H.R. 819................................................... 71
Holmes, Eric J., City Manager, City of Vancouver, Washington,
Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 716................ 70
Sullivan, Gordon R., General, USA Retired, Association of the
United States Army, Letter submitted for the record on H.R.
588........................................................ 73
Tine, Representative Paul, 6th District, North Carolina
General Assembly, Letter submitted for the record on H.R.
819........................................................ 70
Town of Manteo, Statement submitted for the record on H.R.
819........................................................ 71
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Letter
Submitted for the Record................................... 75
Yakama Nation, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 716 73
LLEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 588, TO PROVIDE FOR DONOR
CONTRIBUTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TO BE DISPLAYED AT THE VIETNAM
VETERANS MEMORIAL VISITOR CENTER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``VIETNAM VETERANS DONOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT ACT OF 2013''; H.R.
716, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN
FEDERAL LAND TO THE CITY OF VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 819, 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.''
----------
Thursday, March 14, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Stewart, Young, Tipton,
Grijalva, Holt, Bordallo, Hanabusa, Horsford, Shea-Porter, and
Garcia.
Also Present: Representatives Jones and Herrera Beutler.
Mr. Stewart [presiding]. The hearing will come to order.
The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is meeting today to
hear testimony on three bills.
Under the Rules, opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent
to include any other Members' opening statements in the hearing
record, if submitted to the Clerk by the close of business
today.
[No response.]
Mr. Stewart. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Chairman Bishop is delayed, due to work on another
Committee. But he may provide his statement later in the
briefing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepare Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
I would like to thank the Members that are here today to explain
their legislation, as well as the witnesses who have travelled here to
help us better understand the issues involved. Your comments are
appreciated.
I am concerned that today we find ourselves investigating separate
issues where there has been a failing of a federal agency to work
cooperatively with local residents. We have two situations where locals
feel betrayed by those that have been entrusted to care for the
nationally significant resources in their community.
We will hear stories, facts and figures, some more convincing than
others, but the net result is a breakdown in the relationships which
are critical to the success of these parks. While the temptation is to
point fingers and assign blame, I hope we come out of this with a
better understanding of how things can be done better in the future,
and how to best serve the communities' interest.
I believe that people visit our national parks, seashores and
historic sites to experience the resources, not to experience the park
service. When situations erupt to a point where congressional action is
the best solution, it seems to me that somewhere along the line we lost
sight of that point.
Again, thank you for being here and providing testimony to the
committee.
______
Mr. Stewart. Today's hearing will consist of four panels.
The first panel we are pleased to hear testimony from the
sponsors. Ms. Herrera Beutler will provide comments on H.R.
716, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
land to the City of Vancouver, Washington; Mr. Jones, on H.R.
819, to authorize pedestrian vehicular access in Cape Hatteras
National Seashore; and Mr. Young, the distinguished past
Chairman of the Resources Committee--thank you, sir--will
provide testimony on H.R. 588 to permit donor recognition at
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center. Thank you all
for being here today.
First, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank the panelists. This is the Subcommittee's first
legislative hearing of this 113th Congress. I thank the
witnesses, and look forward to hearing your views and testimony
on the legislation before us.
Traditionally, as this Committee works, the Minority on the
Committee, Democrats, have been provided a level of courtesy,
in terms of including some of the bills sponsored by Members of
the Minority. One of the bills that we requested inclusion was
H.R. 885, the San Antonio Missions bill, which passed the House
on a bipartisan vote in the 111th Congress, on a bipartisan
vote in the 112th Congress. Once sponsored by a former
colleague, a Democrat, and the second time sponsored by a
former colleague, a Republican. We again would encourage the
Chair to consider bills as we see some before us today that
have passed in the past and have received bipartisan support,
that we would be extended that courtesy, as we go forward. And
I hope that the Majority would consider this approach.
I also want to say each of the bills today really deserve
our attention. With the drastic cuts coming and being proposed
for the Park Service budget, we need to understand how to
balance the demand for the Park experience, and the increased
reliance of the National Park Service on private money, and
look forward to those discussions, as well.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank our
witnesses. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Today is the subcommittee's first legislative hearing of the 113th
Congress.
I want to thank the witnesses and look forward to hearing your
views on the testimony before us today.
Traditionally, when hearings are scheduled, Democrats are provided
the courtesy of including their bill of choice in the hearing agenda.
We requested the inclusion of H.R. 885, the San Antonio Missions bill
which passed the House by a bipartisan vote in the 111th Congress and
the 112th Congress. This request was denied. We also requested that the
bill be included in next week's hearing agenda and were denied again.
While I appreciate the comity the Chairman has afforded the minority,
this is not a positive way to begin a new Congress and I hope the
Majority will reconsider their approach.
Each of the bills on the agenda today deserve our attention. With
drastic cuts to the Park Service budget we need to understand how to
balance the demand for park experiences and the increased reliance of
NPS on private money. Thank you again to our witnesses.
______
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, sir. We will now turn to the first
panel. I would ask my colleagues to please keep their testimony
to 5 minutes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler, welcome, ma'am. And you are now
recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Grijalva. It is a pleasure to be here. I would like to
consider--or I would like to thank the Committee. You guys are
considering H.R. 716, which is a really important bill to my
neck of the woods. It has got a pretty innocuous title. It is a
land conveyance of the Pearson Air Museum and surrounding land
from the National Park Service to the City of Vancouver,
Washington.
Here is what this bill is not. It is not an ideological-
driven bill attacking the Park Service, Federal ownership of
land, the Administration, or the preservation of history. That
is not what this bill is. In fact, it is the opposite. The bill
is designed to maintain the quality and level of management
that has made the site nationally renowned, an example of
public-private partnership, and community access for almost the
last 20 years.
The Fort Vancouver National Historic Reserve was
established in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996. Bordered by freeways, an airport, a busy rail
line, this Reserve includes a seven-acre complex described in
the bill on which the Pearson Air Museum is located.
For all intents and purposes, the caretaker and the manager
of the museum has been the nonprofit Fort Vancouver National
Trust. It has raised virtually all of the funds, privately,
mostly from my community for the museum's upkeep, which totals
nearly $10 million. Until the last month, the museum was filled
with privately owned planes that highlighted the rich history
of aviation in southwest Washington. It has also housed
countless education programs as one of the region's most
popular venues, and has hosted more than 100 community events
each year.
The shining example of a well-maintained community treasure
contrasts sharply with the shell of a museum that now sits on
the Fort Vancouver land. In the last year, since I became
involved in this unfortunate situation, our community has
watched their access to this venue disappear. Over a period of
a few months, the National Park Service unilaterally began
denying local community events, a charity concert to benefit
military veterans, an annual all-church picnic and a youth
soccer fair among them.
I struggle to describe the Park Service's approach as
anything but anti-public. Over the last year, my staff and I
organized and attended countless meeting with staff from every
level of the Park Service, from Director John Jarvis to the
local level. And despite these talks, last month the Park
Service decided to terminate a 30-year cooperative management
agreement.
When I say sudden, the Park Service sent a letter to the
Trust, once its partner, demanding the immediate handover of
the museum's alarm code and keys in a 24-hour turnaround. This
is a situation Congress never intended. When the Park Service
ended the agreement, the museum transformed into something
completely unrecognizable by our community. It has been well-
documented on cover after cover of my district's largest
newspaper.
At the owner's request, the contents were removed and the
educational classes were either moved or canceled. And for
weeks the aviation museum sat empty, and it now houses an old
sailboat and a covered wagon.
Perhaps the most concerning is that it now appears that the
Park Service was intending to take sole control of the museum.
An internal Park Service document unearthed by the Vancouver
Columbian newspaper through a FOIA request suggests that the
Park Service was planning this takeover as early as 2009. In
the document I have given to the Committee and staff--I will
submit for the record, the Park Service refers to the eventual
ownership and management of the museum and its assets. I look
forward to Mr. Frost's clarification on these comments.
And for my last point I would like to illustrate for the
Committee the benefit of maintaining the successful local
partnership in managing the Pearson Air Museum. Compare the
difference in the photos that you all have on your desk. The
first is Fort Vancouver's East Barracks, which has been, for
years, managed by the Park Service. They are boarded and shut.
Compare that to the museum, when it was still under the Trust
management. This is why this--at a time when we need these
public-private partnerships, we need those funds to operate, as
you can clearly see, from the illustrations.
Mr. Chairman, my legislation is supported by the City of
Vancouver, virtually every citizen, civic, and community
organization in our region. The Save Pearson Air Museum
Facebook Page now has more than 1,300 likes, dozens have
gathered in protest of the current situation, and my office has
been flooded with pleas by my constituents to pass this
legislation.
I urge the Committee to support this bill, and I ask that
you help us preserve the treasures of Fort Vancouver. Thank
you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Herrera Beutler follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Jaime Herrera Beutler, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Washington, on H.R. 716
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
First I'd like to thank the Committee for its consideration of H.R.
716, a land conveyance of the Pearson Air Museum and surrounding land
from the National Park Service to the city of Vancouver, Washington.
Here's what this bill is not. This is not an ideological driven
bill attacking the Park Service, federal ownership of land, the
administration, or the preservation of history. In fact, it is the
opposite. This is a bill designed to maintain the quality and level of
management that has made this site a nationally renowned example of
public-private partnership and community access for almost 20 years.
The Fort Vancouver National Historic Reserve was established in the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. Bordered by
freeways, an airport, and a busy rail line, this reserve includes the 7
acre complex described in the bill on which the Pearson Air Museum is
located. For all intents and purposes, the caretaker and manager of
this museum has been the nonprofit Fort Vancouver National Trust. It
has raised virtually all of the funds--privately--for the museum's
upkeep, which totals nearly $10 million. Until last month, the museum
was filled with privately-owned planes that highlighted the rich
history of aviation in Southwest Washington. It has also housed
countless education programs, and as one of our region's most popular
venues, it has hosted more than 100 community events each year.
This shining example of a well-maintained community treasure
contrasts sharply with the shell of museum building that sits on the
Ft. Vancouver land today. In the last year since I became involved in
this unfortunate situation, our community has watched their access to
this venue quickly disappear. Over a period of a few months, the
National Park Service unilaterally began denying local community
events: a charity concert to benefit military veterans, an annual all-
church picnic, and a youth soccer fair among them. I struggle to
describe the Park Service's approach as anything other than anti-
public.
Over the last year, my staff and I organized and attended countless
meetings with staff from every level of the Park Service--from Director
Jon Jarvis to the local level. Despite these talks, last month the Park
Service decided to terminate a 30-year cooperative management
agreement. When I say sudden, the Park Service sent a letter to the
Trust--once its partner--demanding the immediate hand over of the
museum's alarm code and keys.
This is a situation Congress never intended. When the Park Service
ended the agreement, the museum transformed into something
unrecognizable by the community. It has been well-documented on cover
after cover of my district's biggest newspaper. At the owners'
requests, the contents were removed, and educational classes were
either moved or cancelled. For weeks the aviation museum sat empty, and
now it houses an old sailboat and a covered wagon.
Perhaps most concerning is that it now appears the Park Service
always intended to take sole control of the museum. An internal Park
Service document unearthed by the Vancouver Columbian newspaper through
FOIA suggests the Park Service was planning a takeover as early as
2009. In the document I have given to committee staff and will submit
to the record, the Park Service refers to eventual ``ownership'' and
``management'' of the museum and its assets. I look forward to Mr.
Frost's clarification of these comments.
For my last point, I'd like to illustrate for the Committee the
benefit of maintaining the successful local partnership in managing the
Pearson Air Museum. Compare the difference in the photos:
The first is Ft. Vancouver's East Barracks, which has for years
been managed by the Park Service. They are boarded shut and perform no
function other than an eye sore for Fort Vancouver.
Compare that to the Pearson Museum--when it was still under Trust
management.
Mr. Chairman, my legislation is supported by the City of Vancouver
and virtually every citizen, civic, and community organization in our
region. The Save Pearson Air Museum Facebook page has more than 1,300
likes. Dozens have gathered in protest of the current situation, and my
office has been flooded with pleas by my constituents to pass this
legislation. I urge the committee to support this bill and ask that you
help us preserve the treasures of Fort Vancouver.
Thank you. I yield back.
______
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Beutler.
Mr. Jones, sir, the time is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Ranking Member
for this opportunity to testify on my bill, H.R. 819. This bill
is about jobs, it is about taxpayers' rights to access the
recreational areas they own, and it is about restoring balance
and common sense to Park Service management.
H.R. 819 would overturn a final rule implemented by the
National Park Service in February of last year, as well as a
2008 United States District Court-ordered 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. 819 would re-institute the Park Service's 2007 interim
management strategy to govern visitors' 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 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. 819 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.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a lot of claims today
about how this bill isn't necessary, about how taxpayers have
more than enough access to the seashore, and about how the
local economy is doing just fine. That is not true. Tell that
to the tackle shop owner in Buxton, who laid off a third of his
employees because of an arbitrary government decision. Tell
that to the motel owner on Hatteras who lost 65 percent of her
customers after the Park Service decided to close the beach.
Tell that to the taxpaying families from Virginia,
Pennsylvania, or Ohio that canceled their vacation to the Outer
Banks because they can no longer fish at this spot at Cape
Point, where they came for years and years before the Park
Service closed it off.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is that the Federal
Government is unnecessarily blocking the public from a National
Seashore created for their recreation and, in so doing, it is
destroying jobs. We can fix this problem by enacting H.R. 819,
and there is broad bipartisan, public support for doing so.
I am grateful that North Carolina's two Senators, Senator
Richard Burr and Senator Kay Hagan, came together last week to
jointly introduce a Senate companion to H.R. 819. And I am very
grateful to both Republican and Democrat for joining in this
effort to protect the people of the Northeast and North
Carolina.
The bill is also supported by a wide variety of national
sportsmen's fishing and access groups, including the American
Sports Fishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, National Marine
Manufacturers, and Americans for Responsible Recreational
Access.
Mr. Chairman, you and the Ranking Member and the Committee
staff will hear next on the third panel the Chairman, Warren
Judge, of the North Carolina Dare Commissioners. This is
another situation of an over-reach by a Federal Government
agency, instead of trying to work with the taxpayers and coming
up with a common-sense resolution. And I hope that this
Committee will look seriously at moving this bill, H.R. 819,
forward.
And I thank you and the Ranking Member for the opportunity
to address the Committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Walter B. Jones, a Representative
in Congress From the State of North Carolina, on H.R. 819
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing and
allowing me to testify on my bill, H.R. 819.
This bill is about jobs, it's about taxpayers' right to access the
recreational areas they own, and it's about restoring balance and
common sense to Park Service management.
H.R. 819 would overturn a final rule implemented by the National
Park Service (NPS) in February of last year, as well as a 2008 U.S.
District Court-ordered 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. 819 would reinstitute the Park Service's 2007 Interim
Management Strategy to govern visitor access and species protection at
Cape Hatteras.
The Interim Strategy was backed by a 113-page Biological Opinion
issued by the U.S. 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. 819
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.
Mr. Chairman, we're going to hear a lot of claims today about how
this bill isn't necessary; about how taxpayers have more than enough
access to the seashore; and about how the local economy is doing just
fine.
Well, let me tell you something: tell that to the tackle shop owner
in Buxton who laid off a third of his employees because of an arbitrary
government decision.
Tell that to the motel owner on Hatteras who lost 65 percent of her
customers after the Park Service decided to close the beach.
Tell that to the tax-paying families from Virginia, Pennsylvania,
or Ohio that cancelled their vacation to the Outer Banks because they
can no longer fish at the spot at Cape Point where they came for years
before the Park Service closed it off.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is that the Federal Government
is unnecessarily blocking the public from a national seashore created
for their recreation, and in so doing, it is destroying jobs.
We can fix this problem by enacting H.R. 819, and there is broad,
bipartisan public support for doing so.
I am grateful that North Carolina Senators Richard Burr and Kay
Hagan came together last week to jointly introduce a Senate companion
to H.R. 819.
The bill is also supported by a wide variety of national
sportsmen's, fishing and access groups, including:
The American Sportfishing Association;
Coastal Conservation Association;
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation;
National Marine Manufacturers; and
Americans for Responsible Recreational Access.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, it's urgently needed, and I urge
the Subcommittee to quickly take action to approve it. Thank you.
______
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Young, sir?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the panel
before I make my short presentation of my bill. I do thank you
and Mr. Bishop for including the Vietnam Veterans Donor
acknowledgment in today's hearing. I appreciate the Committee's
attention toward this time-sensitive issue.
Mr. Chairman, in 2003 Congress passed the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Visitors Center Act to authorize the construction of
an education center at the Vietnam Wall. Not a single Member
voted against it. We passed this bill with such strong support
because every year an increasing number of the millions of
visitors to the Wall, stand in awe of the moving display of the
over 58,000 names, but who do not fully understand the context
and importance of this memorial.
Unfortunately, the Senate tossed a wrench, as usual, into
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center, by prohibiting
donor recognition in the education center. In spite of this
restriction, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has raised over
$40 million from private donors. Yet this amount falls far
short of the funds needed to build the education center.
Mr. Chairman, my bill, H.R. 588, is actually quite simple,
and helps solve the fundraising problem for the center. My bill
allows for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation to
recognize the donors. Additionally, H.R. 588 dovetails exactly
with existing Park Service guidelines, and ensures that donor
recognition is discreet, unobtrusive, and does not contain any
advertising or company logos.
Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous to force any organization to
fundraise without the ability to recognize donors. How are they
supposed to raise any money? Even the National Park Service
understands the importance of donor recognition. I have
personally seen a lot of benches in the National Parks across
this country that have plaques on them, thanking people for
their generous donation.
Overall, my bill is supported by a number of veteran
organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, among
others. I would like to submit this letter in support of the
VFW, for the record. Without objection, I hope that can be
done.
I would also like to welcome Jan Scruggs, President and
Founder of the Vietnam Memorial's memorial fund, and I look
forward to hearing testimony on this important bill. Mr.
Chairman, I do thank you for having a hearing on this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Don Young, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Alaska, on H.R. 588
Mr. Chairman, thank you for including my bill, the Vietnam Veterans
Donor Acknowledgement Act, in today's hearing. I appreciate the
Committee's attention towards this time sensitive issue.
In 2003, Congress passed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor
Center Act to authorize the construction of an Education Center at the
Vietnam Wall; not a single Member voted against it. We passed this bill
with such strong support because every year an increasing number of the
millions of visitors to the Wall stand in awe of the moving display of
the over 58,000 names, but do not fully understand the context and
importance of this memorial.
Unfortunately, the Senate tossed a wrench into the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Visitor Center Act by prohibiting donor recognition in the
Education Center. In spite of this restriction, the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Fund has raised over $40 million from private donors. Yet,
this amount falls far short of the funds needed to build the Education
Center.
Mr. Chairman, my bill, H.R. 588, is actually quite simple and it
helps solve the fundraising problem for this Center. My bill allows for
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation to recognize donors.
Additionally, H.R. 588 dovetails exactly with existing Parks Service
guidelines and ensures that donor recognition is discreet, unobtrusive,
and does not contain any advertising or company logos.
Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous to force any organization to
fundraise without the ability to recognize donors. How are they
supposed to raise any money?!? Even the National Parks Service
understands the importance of donor recognition. I've personally seen a
lot of benches in National Parks all across this country that have
plaques on them thanking people for their generous donations.
Overall, my bill is supported by a number of Veteran Organizations
including the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), among many others. I
would like to submit this letter of support from the VFW into the
record.
I would also like to welcome Jan Scruggs, President and Founder of
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. I look forward to hearing his
testimony on this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for having a hearing on this bill.
______
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Young. And to all the members
of the panel, thank you. And I ask unanimous consent that Ms.
Herrera Beutler and Mr. Jones be permitted to sit on the dais
with us and participate in the hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Stewart. Hearing no objection, then so ordered. You are
welcome to join us.
Our second panel we are pleased to welcome Dr. Frost and
Mr. Scruggs. Dr. Herbert Frost is the Associate Director for
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science at the National Park
Service. He will provide testimony on all three bills. Mr. Jan
Scruggs is a member--I am sorry, is President of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Fund, testifying on behalf of H.R. 588.
Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
record, so I ask that you keep your oral statement to 5
minutes. And I suppose you know the rules on this, but when you
begin to speak a green light will come on before you. After 4
minutes, a yellow light will appear and you should begin to
conclude your statement. At 5 minutes a red light will appear,
and we ask that you conclude at that time.
We will begin with Dr. Frost, then. Sir, please begin your
testimony only on H.R. 588.
STATEMENT OF DR. HERBERT C. FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to present the
Department of the Interior's view on this bill today. I will
submit our full statement of this bill for the record, and
summarize the Department's view.
The Department supports H.R. 588, as amended, in accordance
with our testimony. This bill would amend this legislation that
authorized the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to allow a display of
donors that contributed to the Memorial's visitor center. We
strongly recommend that this legislation be broadened to
provide a donor recognition policy for commemorative works on
lands under the jurisdiction of the Commemorative Works Act.
We would like to work with the Committee, the General
Services Administration, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the
National Capital Planning Commission on amendments to this
bill.
The Commemorative Works Act forbids donor acknowledgment in
any manner as part of the commemorative work or its site. We
believe changes to this provision should be undertaken
thoughtfully. We believe a change of guidance related to donor
recognition should be considered for all memorials under the
Commemorative Works Act, rather than by individual memorial
exception. Proposed changes should conform to all applicable
guidelines, including, but not limited to, National Park
Service guidelines of donor recognitions.
We believe that the following guidelines should be
considered: an appropriate location for the donor recognition;
attributes of the display; whether it is a physical or a
digital recognition; and a requirement that the donor
recognition is temporary, and the requirement the display does
not include any advertising slogans or company logos.
This concludes my statements; I will be happy to take
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Frost follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Hebert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural
Resource Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior
h.r. 588.--to provide for donor contribution acknowledgements to be
displayed at the vietnam veterans memorial visitor center, and for
other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior regarding H.R. 588, a bill to provide
for donor contribution acknowledgements to be displayed at the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Visitor Center, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 588, as amended in accordance with
this testimony. We strongly recommend that this legislation be
broadened to provide a donor recognition policy for commemorative works
on lands under jurisdiction of the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). We
would like to work with the committee, the U.S. General Services
Administration, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the National
Capital Planning Commission on amendments to the bill.
H.R. 588 would amend the legislation that authorized the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial (Pub. L. 96-297) to allow a display of donors that
contributed to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center. The
display would have to meet certain criteria and would require the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior. This legislation is
necessary for a display of donors to be allowed because Congress
directed, in
Pub. L. 108-126, that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center be
constructed in accordance with the CWA (40 U.S.C. Chapter 89), and the
CWA (40 U.S.C. 8905(b)(7)) forbids donor acknowledgement in any manner
as part of a commemorative work or its site.
The CWA prohibition on donor recognition helps preserve the unique
civic character of Washington's public realm, including commemorative
works. Memorials honor events and figures of national significance and
are often located in prominent historic and cultural settings within
the nation's capital. Through the design process outlined in the CWA,
we work with Congressionally-authorized sponsors to build memorials
that appropriately convey commemorative themes and subjects for the
benefit of all Americans. Donor recognition at a memorial site may
detract from the memorial's design, historic setting and narrative. For
these reasons and to promote fairness and parity in the process, we
believe the CWA provision prohibiting donor recognition in a permanent
manner has merit and changes to this provision should be undertaken
thoughtfully.
However, the Department acknowledges the challenge of funding new
memorials. Given the reliance of the Congressionally-authorized
memorial sponsors on the generosity of the public in order to establish
and construct memorials that Congress has authorized, the Department
recognizes the importance of acknowledging large donations for
effective fundraising, and believes that donor recognition may be
appropriate with specific guidelines.
To promote a uniform process for all memorial sponsors and to
ensure a strong design review, a change of guidance related to donor
recognition should be carefully considered more broadly for all
memorials under the CWA rather than by individual memorial exception.
Any proposed changes should conform to all applicable guidelines for
donor recognition, including but not limited to National Park Service
Director's Order #21, the National Park Service Management Policies
2006, and the National Mall and Memorial Parks Donor Recognition Plan
(Mall Donor Recognition Plan).
The Mall Donor Recognition Plan, adopted in 2011, applies only to
structures and sites that are not covered by the CWA. The plan provides
that donor recognition must be located on the interior of a facility,
must be temporary and non-structural, must not detract from the visitor
experience, and must not be affixed to historic structures or museum
collections, benches, park furnishings, bricks or plantings. The plan
currently sets a minimum $1 million donation for such recognition,
although we anticipate that this minimum may need to be raised over
time.
Should the committee consider legislation that permits recognition
of large donations for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center and
future commemorative works on lands under jurisdiction of the CWA, we
recommend that the committee consult with the Department and the other
agencies with responsibilities for commemorative works to develop
appropriate guidelines for donor recognition. Other agencies to consult
include the U.S. General Services Administration, the U.S. Commission
of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Planning Commission.
We believe that the following should be considered in the
development of the guidelines for donor recognition for commemorative
works:
appropriate location for the donor recognition;
attributes of the display, whether physical or digital
(such as a discreet statement or credit acknowledging the contribution,
appropriately scaled for the setting and the commemorative work);
a requirement that the donor recognition is temporary and
is displayed for no more than 5--10 years; and
a requirement that the display does not include any
advertising slogans or company logos.
Should the Congress move forward with a version of H.R. 588, the
Department believes that certain specific provisions for approval of
donor recognition in H.R. 588, in particular, subparagraphs (D), (E),
(F) and (G) of amended section 40 U.S.C. 8905(b)(7) (from page 3, line
4 through page 4, line 8) are unnecessary. This approval process, as
described, would be redundant to the approval process already required
by the CWA for the approval of the design of a memorial, and specifies
an approval time frame that is unworkable. The Department strongly
supports the current process as required by the CWA by which the design
of commemorative works and related support facilities are considered by
the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, reviewed and
approved by the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning
Commission and the Secretary of the Interior. The review and approval
of donor recognition displays within the National Mall and Memorial
Parks can be seamlessly integrated with the existing approval process
for commemorative works because these displays would be part of the
plan of the memorial and its site.
The Department would be happy to assist the committee working with
the U.S. General Services Administration, the U.S. Commission of Fine
Arts, and the National Capital Planning Commission, in drafting
revisions to H.R. 588 in accordance with this statement.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
h.r. 716.--a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to convey
certain federal land to the city of vancouver, washington, and for
other purposes
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior regarding H.R. 716, a bill to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey certain federal land to the City of
Vancouver, Washington.
The Department strongly opposes the enactment of this legislation.
H.R. 716 requires the conveyance to the City of Vancouver of seven
acres of federal land within the boundaries of Fort Vancouver National
Historic Site, including the park's main historic hangers,
headquarters, and munitions building. Such a conveyance threatens the
values and resources of the National Historic Site. We believe that
continued management of this federal land by the National Park Service
would be the best way to ensure the protection of the park's nationally
significant cultural resources in perpetuity and to continue to provide
top-quality education and interpretation of its unique history.
The federal land within the boundaries of Fort Vancouver National
Historic Site that would be conveyed to the City of Vancouver under
H.R. 716 includes the Pearson Air Museum complex, which contains the
main hangar and three historic structures dating to World War I or
before. The federal land also includes archaeological sites associated
with the Hudson's Bay Company multi-cultural fur trade post, containing
resources from many indigenous peoples; the early U.S. Army Vancouver
Barracks; and early Army aviation history tied to Pearson Field. These
seven acres would be transferred to the City of Vancouver, Washington,
without consideration, with the City of Vancouver paying only the cost
of conveyance.
Removing this property from federal ownership would also remove
federal protections under cultural resources preservation laws such as
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological Resources
Protection Act, the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, and the
American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
Fort Vancouver National Monument was authorized by Congress in 1948
and established in 1958 to preserve cultural resources associated with,
and to tell the story of, colonial fur trading, American settlement,
and U.S. Army history in the Pacific Northwest. In 1961, the authorized
boundaries were expanded to include adjacent areas and the park
designation was changed to Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. In
1972, the National Park Service purchased a 72-acre parcel of land
within the boundary of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site from the
City of Vancouver, which included the Pearson Air Museum complex. While
there are over a dozen general aviation museums in the Northwest, the
place-based history of Pearson Field makes the Pearson Air Museum
complex a unique nationally-significant part of Fort Vancouver National
Historic Site.
In 1994, the City of Vancouver and the National Park Service
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to allow for the development of
a new air museum within the historic site, and the park's General
Management Plan was amended to conform to this mutual goal. In 1995,
the National Park Service and the City of Vancouver entered into a
cooperative agreement for operation of the air museum on behalf of the
National Park Service. In 2005, the City entered into a sub-agreement
with the Fort Vancouver National Trust to operate the museum on behalf
of the City of Vancouver.
For several years the Trust allowed special events to occur at the
museum site without National Park Service review and outside of federal
policies. The National Park Service worked for several years behind the
scenes to resolve the handling of special events, but unfortunately
these efforts were unsuccessful. Although the National Park Service is
held accountable for events that occur on federal property, the Trust
stated that it did not want to be subjected to federal rules and NPS
oversight and they approved events that were in violation of NPS laws,
regulations, and policies. In the summer of 2012, the Trust was in the
process of charging fees and issuing permits for several large scale,
multi-thousand person outdoor events when the NPS determined that
aspects of these events conflicted with NPS law and policy. The
National Park Service offered to work directly with the applicants to
adapt their events in order to meet NPS laws and regulations.
Since April 2012, the NPS and the Trust have been unable to agree
to terms of a new cooperative agreement for operation of the museum
that would adhere to NPS regulations, laws and policies. Consequently,
the NPS and the City of Vancouver terminated their agreement on
February 1, 2013, which resulted in the cancellation of the sub-
agreement with the Trust. The Trust no longer operates the museum.
Our strong opposition to this bill is grounded in the fact that
these seven acres and their cultural resources are integral to Fort
Vancouver National Historic Site. Removal of this land from the
management of the National Park Service would diminish the level of
protection afforded to this area and would diminish the integrity of
resources, including the reconstructed fur trade post, within the rest
of the National Historic Site that are essential to the enabling
legislation of the park. This bill would create a non-federal area
within the boundaries of the park. These adjacent sites would be
managed by different entities according to different standards for
resource protection and special events management, and would create not
only confusion for the public but also friction in their management.
This would likely adversely affect the resources of the surrounding
national park areas while creating a cumulative negative impact on the
park, its setting, and the ability of the visitor to connect with and
understand its historical significance in totality.
Congress entrusted the National Park Service with the care and
stewardship of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Pearson Air
Museum has been a vital and valued part of the park, and for the past
18 years, the National Park Service has worked with partners, including
the City of Vancouver, to ensure that the museum's resources are
preserved and that it is open and accessible to the public. The
National Park Service understands the goal of local residents and the
City of Vancouver to have the museum open and we have achieved that
shared goal. The National Park Service reopened the museum on February
27, 2013, and has waived admission for the public. We have developed
temporary exhibits around the theme of historic transportation in the
region and intend to refocus the exhibits on aviation when we secure
the necessary artifacts and exhibits. We have contacted other aviation
museums, organizations and private owners to explore housing loaned
aviation artifacts.
The National Park Service is also actively working with the public
who are interested in holding special events at the site and we have
already issued several permits for the near future.
We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Vancouver to
protect these nationally-significant resources and to serve their local
residents. To that end, we have asked the City of Vancouver to
reinstall the exhibits that were specifically designed for this museum.
We have made several attempts to contact City officials through letters
and phone calls and will continue to reach out to City officials in the
hopes that they would like to work with us to see this museum operate
to full capacity.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer questions that you or other members of the committee might have.
h.r. 819.--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. 819, 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. 819. 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).
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/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
special regulation are accomplishing these objectives far better than
the defunct Interim Strategy. Contrary to some reports, there is not
now and never has been a ban on ORVs at the Seashore. The great
majority of the beach is open to ORVs, visitation is rising, and
tourist revenues are at record levels. At the same time, beach-nesting
birds and sea turtles are finally showing much-needed improvements.
The Seashore stretches for about 67 miles along three islands of
the Outer Banks of North Carolina. It is famous for its soft sandy
beaches, outstanding natural beauty, and dynamic coastal processes that
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. Long a popular recreation
destination, Cape Hatteras attracts about 2.3 million visitors a year
who come to walk the beach, swim, sail, fish, use ORVs, and enjoy the
ambiance of the shore. In the towns that dot the Outer Banks, a major
tourism industry has developed to serve visitors and local beachgoers,
including fishermen. In 2011, visitors to the three islands spent
approximately $121 million (an increase of 13 million dollars from
2010), and supported about 1,700 jobs.
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 wildlife, 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 special regulation that went into effect on February 15, 2012,
brings the Seashore into compliance with applicable laws, policies, and
Executive Orders 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. When 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
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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.
After a lawsuit was filed against the Interim Strategy, a federal
judge entered a Consent Decree for park management. 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 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.
Under the science-based species protection measures of the Consent
Decree, many of which are incorporated into the ORV management plan and
special regulation, a trend of improving conditions for beach nesting
birds and sea turtles has emerged. Although breeding success depends on
a number of factors including weather, predation, habitat availability,
and level of human disturbance, 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 piping plover breeding pairs has increased
from an annual average of 3.6 pairs from 2000 to 2007 under the Interim
Strategy to an average of 11.75 pairs between 2008 and 2011 under the
Consent Decree. In 2012, the NPS documented 15 piping plover breeding
pairs. The number of sea turtle nests also significantly increased,
from an annual average of 77.3 from 2000 to 2007 to an average of 129
from 2008 to 2011. In 2012, sea turtle nesting in the Seashore climbed
to an all-time high of 222.
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.
Under the Consent Decree from 2007 to 2011, annual visitation at the
Seashore continued at a level similar to that of 2006 to 2007. In 2012,
visitation increased 17 percent from 2011, and it was a 6 percent
increase from the average visitation between 2007 and 2011. Dare
County, where the Seashore is located, experienced record occupancy and
meal revenues in 2012, as reported by the Outer Banks Visitor Bureau,
despite the impacts of Hurricane Sandy that closed or substantially
limited traffic along North Carolina Highway 12 to Hatteras Island from
late October to late December 2012. This occupancy revenue has
continued to climb over the last several years as follows: 2009 ($318
million), 2012 ($330 million), 2011 ($343 million), 2012 ($382 million
through the end of November) while meals revenue has also increased as
follows: 2009 ($185 million), 2010 ($188 million), 2011 ($191 million),
and 2012 ($201 million though the end of November).
The final ORV management plan and regulation provide long-term
guidance for the management of ORV use and the protection of affected
wildlife species at the Seashore. The plan not only provides 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 adapts to changing conditions over the life-span of
the plan. It includes a 5-year periodic review process that will enable
the NPS to systematically evaluate the plan's effectiveness and make
any necessary changes.
During the preparation of the environmental impact statement (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, as well as 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.
Moreover, if the Interim Strategy were to be reinstated, it could
well be counterproductive to visitor access. Under the Interim
Strategy, popular destinations such as Cape Point and the inlet spits
still experienced resource protection closures. 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, which is more
likely when there is a higher level of human disturbance in proximity
to nests and chicks. Under the Consent Decree, with its science-based
buffers, there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of these
renesting attempts for piping plovers and American oystercatchers,
which means the duration of closures is typically shorter. Because the
Interim Strategy allows smaller buffers and more disturbance of nests
and chicks at these key sites, it increases the likelihood that birds
will renest one or more time at those sites, and so even though the
closures may seem smaller, they may be in place for a longer time than
under the ORV plan or Consent Decree. This is even more likely to be
the case now, because the number of nesting birds has increased
significantly since 2007.
The Seashore has taken steps to enhance access in areas favored by
beach fishermen. Specifically, a bypass below Ramp 44 allows ORV access
to the eastern side of Cape Point and areas not closed during bird
breeding season in the event of access blockage on the beach proper,
whether from weather and tide events or resource closures. At Hatteras
Inlet, at the end of Hatteras Island, a trail has been created and
maintained to allow ORV access and the ability to park closer to what
have traditionally been preferred fishing areas. In the proximity of
Ramp 4, a pedestrian access trail adjacent to the Oregon Inlet Fishing
Center to provide access for fishing in the ocean for those visitors
without ORVs. Also, as a mitigation measure with the building of the
new Bonner Bridge project, a new access ramp will be installed at
approximately mile 2.5 that will expedite access to the northern end of
the park. The Seashore is also in the final stages of completing an
Environmental Assessment titled ``Proposal to Construct New Development
that Facilitates Public Access'' which may include additional access
points to areas that are traditionally closed off due to resource
closure; these will enhance the fishing/beach driving opportunities.
In addition to reinstating the Interim Strategy, H.R. 819 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 Endangered Species
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. 819 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. For example, under the current regulation,
the Seashore works with the communities and has the ability to allow
access around a turtle nest when the alternative route is between the
nest and dunes but does not cause impairment to the existing dunes/
vegetation.
Shorebird nesting areas are often close to the shoreline because of
the Seashore's typically narrow beaches. A concentration of nests occur
near the inlets and Cape Point, and access corridors cannot always be
allowed without defeating the fundamental purpose of such closures:
protecting 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 5-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 Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee's function was to assist directly in the
development of special regulations for management of ORVs and met from
2007 to 2009. Although the committee did not reach consensus on a
proposed regulation, it provided a valuable forum for the discussion of
ORV management and generated useful information for the NPS. 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.
Currently, the ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation are
the subject of a complaint that was filed by a coalition of ORV
organizations with the US District Court in the District of Columbia on
February 9, 2012. The Memorandum of Order to transfer the complaint to
the U.S. District Court of North Carolina was issued on December 23,
2012.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
______
Mr. Young [presiding]. Mr. Scruggs, you are up next.
STATEMENT OF JAN D. SCRUGGS, ESQ., PRESIDENT, VIETNAM VETERANS
MEMORIAL FUND
Mr. Scruggs. Well, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,
a pleasure to be here. This is really a very special day in
which we are working to straighten out a piece of legislation
which was not really drafted to assist us in this very
important task.
We are building an education center at the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial. This is really important for the Nation. This is a
place where service will be celebrated. This is a place where
the photographs of our fallen heroes who died, as the
Congressman pointed out, who gave their lives for the Federal
Government of the United States will be displayed. Yet, when
this legislation was written, it was crafted in such a way that
we could not only not receive any Federal funds, but, because
of no donor recognition, we really can't get the private funds
to get this built. So we merely need to get this underway.
We had very wide support back in November, ceremonial
groundbreaking, and very happy to have Dr. Joe Biden there, the
leadership of the House and Senate. Both parties were a part of
this groundbreaking, the leadership of the military. There is
just wide support for this, because this will be a place where
the military veterans of Vietnam will be recognized. It will
also be a place displaying the photographs of the casualties
from Iraq and Afghanistan until they get their own memorial one
day.
So, we have been the greatest partners, I think, that the
Park Service has ever had, for over 30 years. You know, right
now I have people at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial today. They
are going to every light there, every gasket. They are
measuring it, they will be replacing the gaskets. We have a
lawn service program. Four times a year we send somebody to put
the proper chemicals on the statues there.
There is no end to what we do. In irrigation, we have
irrigated the site and constantly we are putting money into it.
As a matter of fact, I just gave the National Park Service
$150,000. This is a contract that will allow the National Park
Service people to select the photos and some of the items that
have been left at the Memorial. So this will be a special
place.
And I just want to thank everybody on the Committee for
having us here today. It is just such a magnificent
opportunity.
And I really must note the support of Congressman Young of
Alaska. I went to him to help solve this problem, and he said
he was going to give it his best shot. And we appreciate this
day.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scruggs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jan D. Scruggs, Esq. President and Founder of the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, on H.R. 588, Vietnam Veterans Donor
Acknowledgement Act of 2013
I. Introduction
I am Jan Scruggs, President and Founder of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Fund. I am pleased and grateful to have the opportunity to
speak today about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund's Education Center
at the Wall (``the Education Center'') and the critical need for H.R.
588, the Vietnam Veterans Donor Acknowledgement Act of 2013 (``H.R.
588''). Thank you for the opportunity to explain why this legislation
is so important to the effort to build the Education Center.
II. The Education Center at the Wall
The Education Center at The Wall will be a place on the National
Mall where America's military heroes' service and sacrifice will never
be forgotten. It will be an inspirational place, where visitors leave
yearning to learn more. The Education Center will be an ideal
complement to The Wall in honoring those who have selflessly served the
nation and sacrificed their lives. It will provide a more complete
picture of these patriots--the lives they lived and the lives they
touched. It will bring into clearer focus and personalize their level
of sacrifice and the price that is inevitable whenever our nation goes
to war.
Construction of the Education Center could not be more timely. The
Nation is in the midst of recognizing the 50th anniversary of the
Vietnam War. More than 400 Vietnam veterans die each day--American
heroes who will not see the Education Center come to fruition. In fact,
if we were to begin construction TODAY, almost 300,000 Vietnam-era
veterans would pass before completion. So, it is imperative that this
important project remain on track.
In addition, The Education Center will be built by veterans. VVMF
has entered into agreements with construction contractors to ensure
that they will make a special effort to employ Afghanistan and Iraq
veterans in building the Education Center. This will create 800 or more
jobs for 18 to 24 months.
III. H.R. 588--The Donor Recognition Legislation--Why It is Needed
The enabling legislation for the Education Center mandates that it
be privately funded. The level of private donations received or pledged
already has been impressive--over $40 million. This includes a $3.3
million contribution from the government of Australia that was
presented in 2011 to VVMF by the Australian Prime Minister and more
than $16 million in in-kind contributions.
That, however, will not be enough to complete the job.
The contributions thus far total about 25 percent of the amount
needed to complete the project. While vigorous fund-raising continues
on a daily basis, the enabling legislation includes a restriction on
donor recognition that inhibits a more successful effort among some of
the potentially most generous donors. Some potential donors over the
years have given donations elsewhere because of this issue. H.R. 588 is
intended to remove that restriction while respecting the inviolability
of the National Mall.
The Education Center was authorized in 2003 as ``The Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Visitor Center'' by the 108th Congress in Title I of
Public Law 108-126 (``the Act'').\1\ Section 204 of Title II
(``Commemorative Works'') of the Act (40 U.S.C. Section 8905(b)(7)),
however, included the following restriction:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ATTACHMENT (''Att'') 1--Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor
Center Authorization, Public Law 108-126--NOV. 17, 2003
DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS.--Donor contributions to commemorative
works \2\ shall not be acknowledged in any manner as part of
the commemorative work or its site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Title 40, Section 8902(a)(1) defines ``commemorative work'' as
``. . . any statue, sculpture, memorial, plaque, inscription, or other
structure or landscape feature, including a garden or memorial grove,
designed to perpetuate in a permanent manner the memory of an
individual, group, event or significant element of American history,
except that the term does not include any such item which is located
within the interior of the structure or which is primarily used for
other purposes.''
H.R. 588 lifts this restriction, but does so in a manner entirely
consistent with National Park Service Director's Order 21: Donations
and Fund-Raising, dated June 11, 200.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Att 2--U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Director's Order #21: Donations and Fundraising (July 11,
2008). This Order provides in relevant part:
10.2 In-Park Recognition. In some cases a gift may warrant in-park
recognition. This section describes the in-park recognition options
available to park managers. The form of donor recognition will likely
occur in the park's visitor center or other similar facility or
developed area.
In-park recognition is typically provided in the form of a credit
line or statement of appreciation by a park. A credit line is a short,
discrete [sic], unobtrusive statement expressing appreciation typically
found at the end if the material or item, or on a donor recognition
plaque.
To maintain NPS policy that parks be free of commercialism,
advertising and marketing slogans and taglines may not appear under any
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The Donor Recognition Permitted by H.R. 588 Underscores National
Park Service's Understanding and Appreciation of the Importance
of Donor Recognition
We understand that the National Park Service may be updating their
guidelines on donor recognition. The fact remains that the National
Park Service has made it clear that donor recognition is important. In
the section of the National Park Service website on ``Partnerships''
and ``Donor/Partner''\4\, that conclusion is explicit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/donor-partner.htm (Att 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why recognize donors?
Recognizing donors is key to successful fundraising. Donor
recognition is actually mutual appreciation. The donors first
express their respect, passion and appreciation for a NPS park
or program in the form of their contribution. We, in turn,
express our appreciation to the donors for their contributions.
People have many causes they can support and they have made our
parks and programs their giving priority. They deserve our full
recognition and appreciation.
NPS managers need to recognize donors for their generosity and
support and report on the good work made possible by their
donations . . . .
The National Park Service also understands that donor recognition
can lead to even more successful fund-raising:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/donor-partner.htm (Att 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultivating relationships through the personal touch
In addition to simple good manners and courtesy, recognizing
donors in meaningful ways is an effective means of cultivating
stronger relationships that may lead to additional, larger
gifts, and stronger personal engagement. Appropriate donor
recognition can strengthen a sense of connection, ownership and
commitment between your park or program and your donors because
it makes the act of giving more personal and rewarding . . . .
The donor recognition envisioned for the Education Center also is
consistent with the concept of partnering with private sector donors to
share in the support of our nation's parks and memorials. In times of
limited and decreasing budgets, this partnering approach is even more
important.
V. The Donor Recognition Permitted By H.R. 588 Follows the Model
Already Present on the National Mall
The donor recognition permitted by H.R. 588 would not be unique on
the National Mall. The donor recognition would be similar to the
recognition on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial. As with that
memorial, the recognition permitted by H.R. 588 would be discreet,
unobtrusive and free from advertising or company logos. More important,
the donor recognition envisioned for the Education Center will be
inside this underground facility and will not be visible from the
National Mall.
Donor recognition in this form is entirely consistent with the
essential nature of the Education Center which will truly be a place of
learning and reflection about the values exemplified by the lives of
those who have served and died for our country. Any donor recognition
would have to be in harmony with this serious and thoughtful
environment.
VI. H.R. 588 is Supported by Key Veterans and Veterans Support Groups
I am gratified that H.R. 588 has the full support of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, the American Gold Star Mothers, the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Order of the Purple
Heart, and Sons and Daughters in Touch.
VII. Conclusion
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has undertaken this unique
project with total dedication and commitment. When the Education Center
is completed, it will provide an opportunity for visitors from around
the world to more fully understand and appreciate the extraordinary
sacrifice of those who have given their lives in the nation's defense.
Visitors will not simply read their names. They will see these patriots
and get to know them in ways not envisioned in any other facility on
the National Mall.
Over the past quarter century, VVMF has spent millions of its own
privately-raised dollars for the upkeep and maintenance in the five
acres around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. We will continue to take on
these expenses to ensure that this portion of the National Mall remains
a beautiful, inspiring place for all Americans. We have a proven track
record of partnering with the National Park Service in a positive and
cost effective manner. We will do no less when it comes to the
Education Center and donor recognition.
Notwithstanding the fundraising success achieved already for the
Education Center, more must be done. H.R. 588 will allow us to maximize
our fund-raising effort with major donors in a way we know will make an
enormous difference. We need the leverage this legislation can provide
now. As more time passes, the costs of the project will only go up, not
down. Without doubt, H.R. 588 will move us much closer to making this
extraordinary and worthwhile project a reality.
On behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, I thank you for
your time and consideration, and I respectfully request your strong
support for H.R. 588.
______
Mr. Bishop [presiding]. I appreciate the people who have--I
apologize for being late, I am sorry about that. I had another
Committee I had to do an introduction in. I appreciate
Congressman Young and Stewart for leading. Thank you for being
here. You finished your opening statements already? My, you are
fast. Appreciate your opening statements. You are ready for
questions?
Mr. Young, I will turn to you. I told you you had to wait
your turn, and this is your turn.
Mr. Young. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to
thank you for having this hearing on my bill today.
Mr. Scruggs, I want to thank you for the work you have
done. It is an outstanding piece of work for this Nation and
for the Vietnam veterans that were very much maligned. And,
unfortunately, over a period of time we find out that those
warriors that were involved, our soldiers, are people that
didn't volunteer for the Army, they were drafted, and they were
actually looked down upon by the American people. And I think
this is an attempt to really apologize.
And the idea of a visitors center--a wall is fine, and I
recognize that. But to explain why that wall there is what you
are doing, and this education center and raising money without
being recognized is hard to do. And so, I have been a big
supporter. I was there, we broke ground for this center, and I
again want to congratulate you.
But my understanding, this will still be property of the
Federal Government. It is on Federal Government land. Is that
correct?
Mr. Scruggs. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Young. And you will display photos of the soldiers,
that will be digitized, or just actually photographs? Or how--
--
Mr. Scruggs. Yes----
Mr. Young. How big will those have to be? There are a lot
of them.
Mr. Scruggs. These will be digitized. There will be a wall
on which these photos are displayed, approximately twice the
size of that wall.
Mr. Young. OK. This will produce money for the Park
Service, correct?
Mr. Scruggs. Yes. We estimate between $3 to $5 million, if
not more, can be raised on an annual basis. And this has been
certified by Ernst and Young, the big accounting firm.
Mr. Young. OK. And this bill is time-sensitive, is that
correct?
Mr. Scruggs. This bill is time-sensitive, you are correct.
And we don't need another extension, we need to get this bill
through so we can raise the money. There are an awful lot of
people waiting for this to be built.
Mr. Young. The employment that would be used at the
visitors center, will they be veterans, or will they have to go
through the Park Service, or will you do the hiring capability?
How will that be done?
Mr. Scruggs. We have instructed the construction managers
to find ways to hire unemployed military veterans from Iraq and
Afghanistan to build this through veteran-owned companies and
other sources. So we want this to be built by the veterans of
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Young. Just out of curiosity, did you include Vietnam
veterans in this program, or are they too old?
Mr. Scruggs. Yes, yes. Those who are still working for a
living, like myself, yes.
Mr. Young. Well, I am a big supporter of this legislation,
and hopefully the Committee will move it very quickly. And then
you have the work on the other side of the dark hole. That is
on the other side of the aisle. And so we have to keep pursuing
this, and making sure it is done.
Mr. Frost, I know you want to broaden this. You make
suggestions. Again, you heard Mr. Scruggs say that this is a
time-sensitive bill, and I don't want this thing to get bogged
down. I suggest, respectfully, that you can come back to us
later on and maybe we will move another bill. But this is
really for the Vietnam education center, that is my suggestion.
Don't push that too hard. I am being nice to the Park Service
today, one of the few times in my life.
Dr. Frost. We appreciate it.
Mr. Young. Yes, good, because I am not happy with some of
the conduct out of your realm of how the Park Service has never
considered people as part of the parks. It has always been,
``We are the government, you do as we tell you to do and shut
up.'' And I have seen this in Alaska over and over and over
again.
And I am going to introduce legislation that we take over
the management of the parks, because they are not managing the
parks. They just have their little visitor--the Yukon Charley
has 9 million acres of land. They use 100 acres of that land as
a footprint. And none of the Alaskans can go into that park
without asking the Park Service first. And I am saying, ``Come
on. That is wrong.''
That is not your problem, I just want you to know I want
those people to hear this. The Park Service is badly managed
with an arrogance you cannot believe. And I think that is not
the right way to go. And I am glad to see you are working with
Mr. Scruggs. I ask you to continue to do that. That is your
role. And make sure this system is developed, this visitors
center is finished. And with that you will be in my good graces
for about 2 seconds. But that is long enough, believe me. I
yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We let him go first because he has
the best attitude toward you of anyone on the panel.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. The gentlelady from Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Grijalva.
I am a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a
cosponsor of this bill. And I stand firm in recognizing the
commitments and the sacrifices made by our soldiers. I want to
thank Congressman Young for introducing this legislation. We
have many veterans organizations on Guam, which I represent,
and one of the most active is the Vietnam veterans
organization.
The education center under the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Wall would be a fitting testament to the soldiers who have
given their lives to protect our country. And I just have a few
questions for you, Mr. Scruggs. Can you describe the
cooperation partnership between the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Fund and the National Park Service over the past decade?
Mr. Scruggs. Over the past decade and over the past three
decades, it has been a good and fruitful partnership. We have
always been able to work things out, which is why the current
desire to change this bill is incorrect. We have ways of
working with the Park Service to get this donor recognition
done. So we don't need to change this bill. It is very well
written.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. H.R. 588 calls for donor
recognition. And I have to agree with Mr. Young. Donors
normally like to be recognized. Sometimes there are cases where
they do not want to be recognized. But, all in all, it is a
nice thing to recognize the donors. So, this bill calls for the
recognition to be done in a manner consistent with existing
National Park Service guidelines. Do you anticipate any
challenges or obstacles that would hinder your ability to work
cooperatively with the National Park Service on this particular
topic?
Mr. Scruggs. No. As written, this legislation solves a
problem that was created 10 years ago.
Ms. Bordallo. And then my last question is can you explain
how the education center will have an impact on villages--where
I come from--and cities in my district?
Mr. Scruggs. You see, the magnificent idea behind this is
that when people go back to Guam or to Maui, which is very near
you----
Ms. Bordallo. That is right.
Mr. Scruggs [continuing]. By the way, we have now all the
photographs of the casualties from Maui. When they go back to
their village, they will have to do one thing. In order to
honor one of the casualties from Guam, they will have to do
four hours of volunteer work. It can be at a church, it can be
at a synagogue, it can be at a community center. So, when they
come back to Guam, this will be about Guam, not about something
in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Bordallo. Now you mentioned you have a list of
casualties from Maui----
Mr. Scruggs. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo [continuing]. From the State of Hawaii. Do you
have that list from Guam?
Mr. Scruggs. We have the list, and we have about a third of
them. So we need some more help to get the rest. They----
Ms. Bordallo. Good. You let my office know if you need any
assistance in that area.
Mr. Scruggs. Very nice, yes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. And again, many thanks to
Congressman Young. I appreciate this bill. All right. And I
yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Herrera Beutler, do you have any
questions on this bill?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I don't.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Hanabusa, on this bill?
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Chair, I just have a short statement.
Mr. Bishop. Please.
Ms. Hanabusa. First of all, I am a spouse of a Vietnam
veteran. And I would also like to join my colleague from Guam
for thanking Mr. Young for allowing me to be a original
cosponsor. And, Mr. Chair, I believe that this is a bill that
has bipartisan strong support, and one that I would like to see
that we will all move out of this Committee. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Horsford, on this bill?
Mr. Horsford. No, Mr. Chairman, other than I would like to
respectfully ask Mr. Young if I could sign on as a cosponsor.
Mr. Young. You got it.
Mr. Bishop. That easy? Isn't there cash involved or
something?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. I think I saw your two nameplates in the other
committee, as well, so thank you for being here.
Ms. Shea-Porter, to this bill?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Yes. I just wanted to thank you for
bringing this up. I am the spouse of a Vietnam-era veteran, and
I recall the era quite well. And I think doing this and doing
it quickly now is appropriate, and I want to thank everybody
for working in a bipartisan manner to honor the men and women.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Ranking Member Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Just to thank Mr. Young, although the
accolades are flowing today. Thank you very much for the
legislation. Also, I think it is very important. At MLK and the
Roosevelt Memorials, the donors are recognized. And I think
that this should be OK. And I agree with Mr. Young, it needs to
be expedited.
From that Vietnam era, when my friends came back from
service, they were treated as though they were the villains and
they were the ones responsible for this war, not the
policymakers. Thank God that has changed with time, and the
warrior is acknowledged for his service. We debate the policy,
but never the warrior any more.
And I think this visitors center is very important. That
war dictated many things in this country, not just the war. And
to have that center there is important, because it is part of
the redemption of treating these Vietnam veterans as they
should have been treated when they first came home.
So thank you very much. And the legislation is a good one,
and needs to be expedited. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Are there any further questions for
this panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. If not, we thank you for your presence here and
your testimony. Thank Congressman Young for the bill, as well
as helping out, sitting in, getting us started. I appreciate
that.
Mr. Scruggs, if you would like to stay, you are welcome to.
Personally, I can't think of a reason why you would want to.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. But you can, if you would like to. We would
like to ask Mr. Strahan if he would come up and join the panel.
Mr. Frost, if you would stay, I would be appreciative of that.
We will now go into House Bill 716, introduced by the
gentlelady from Washington.
Mr. Strahan, if you have a comment?
Mr. Strahan. I do.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You are, as I understand, the
President of the Fort Vancouver National Trust.
Mr. Strahan. Yes, I am.
Mr. Bishop. You are recognize for 5 minutes for any kind of
oral comments you have. Your written statement will be part of
the record.
STATEMENT OF ELSON STRAHAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL TRUST
Mr. Strahan. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bishop,
Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting me to testify.
I am here today to ask for your help to save the Pearson
Air Museum. I work for the Fort Vancouver National Trust, which
operated the museum on behalf of the City of Vancouver,
Washington. Eighteen years ago, using community funds and city
support--yes?
Mr. Bishop. Can I interrupt you for a second? Is your mic
on?
Mr. Strahan. I have a green light.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. Can you pull it closer to your mouth? It
is hard to hear. Thank you.
Mr. Strahan. OK. Eighteen years ago, using community
funding and city support, the City of Vancouver built the
museum on the corner of a larger area owned by the National
Park Service. And therefore, the city's development and
operation of the museum was guided by a cooperative agreement
with the National Park Service.
Until last month, the air museum was packed with classic
planes, aviation exhibits, and hands-on simulators. With the
help of community volunteers who had contributed over 5,000
hours each year, it excelled in delivering programs designed to
inspire and to educate about the golden age of aviation. It was
a first-class air museum.
Between general visitation, our educational programs and
events, the museum had over 30,000 visitors a year. We hosted
over 100 local community events annually at the museum. We
believe that because the community built and funded the museum,
the doors should be open and accessible to everyone in the
community for special events like church picnics and benefit
concerts for military families and our veterans, and for many
area nonprofits.
By making it available at low rental rates, we were also
able to sustain operations. In fact, since the museum opened
its doors in 1995, it has operated using a sustainability model
with the purpose of independently supporting operations and
educational programs without Federal funds.
In February, the Park Service terminated the cooperative
agreement and assumed control of the museum. We were given less
than 48 hours notice to turn over the keys and alarm codes.
Because we would not simply turn over to the NPS the exhibits
we owned, or those on loan for which we had stewardship
responsibility, we were effectively forced to vacate, leaving
the museum empty.
The NPS's termination was based on what appeared, from my
perspective, to be arbitrary grounds. The community's
partnership to operate the museum that had worked so well for
so long was suddenly fraught with problems. For over a year we
tried to work through all of the issues raised by NPS in order
to save the museum ourselves. Our attempts failed.
I understand that the Park Service must follow its own
rules as it interprets them. But as my written comments
reflect, the Park Service appears to be applying its rules
inconsistently. They have characterized our permitting of an
outdoor benefit concert for veterans and an annual community
picnic for churches as violation of those regulations.
All I can tell you is that events like these have been
occurring at Fort Vancouver for many, many years. The Park
Service was aware of and permitted them, such as Independence
Day, with more than 35,000 attendees. In fact, the NPS even
hosts events such as these, like the annual National Cross
Country Championship, that draws hundreds of runners and has a
severe impact on the grounds. Accordingly, NPS's new approach
for events at Pearson is simply not right.
The Trust has established a record of caring for historic
properties, as the entire site, including city property, is on
the Historic Register. In fact, my organization is already
responsible for caring for the oldest building on the reserve,
the city-owned Grant House, constructed in 1850, as well as the
Marshall and O.O. Howard Houses, and all of Officers Row.
We understand very well the importance of preserving and
the standards for preserving our Nation's historic treasures.
The community response to the loss of the museum has been
stunning: protests, petitions, letters to the editor, op eds,
and editorials from our city's daily newspaper calling on the
Park Service to return the museum to the community which has
built and sustained the asset. Today, the museum is no longer
the vibrant air museum it once was.
Included with my written statement are photographs that
reflect that change. I have also included the maps of the area
that provide a sense of the urban setting and location of the
museum. The City and the Trust are ready to restore the museum
to what it once was before the Park Service took it over: a
valuable, community resource that could be operated without
Federal funding. To do that we ask for your help in supporting
H.R. 716. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elson Strahan, President and CEO, Vancouver
National Historic Reserve Trust, dba Fort Vancouver National Trust, on
H.R. 716
I. Introduction
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. I am here today to
ask for your help to save the Pearson Air Museum. I work for the Fort
Vancouver National Trust, which operated the air museum on behalf of
the City of Vancouver. Eighteen years ago, using community funding and
city support, the City of Vancouver built the Pearson Air Museum
adjacent to Pearson Airfield, a city-owned airport that is one of the
oldest operating airfields in the United States. The air museum itself
was built on the corner of a larger area that is owned by the National
Park Service (``NPS''), and therefore the City's development and
operation of the museum, on NPS grounds, was guided by a cooperative
agreement.
Until last month, the Pearson Air Museum was packed with dozens of
classic planes, models, and hands-on flight simulators. It made lasting
impressions on the over 30,000 people each year who came to visit, and
with the help of community volunteers, it excelled at delivering
educational programs designed to inspire and educate about the Golden
Age of Aviation. The museum hosted after-school programs, summer camps,
provided specialized tours for the deaf and blind, and used cutting
edge approaches to teach aviation history in a way that also equipped
students with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
based, real life skills. It was a first class air museum, offered at a
minimal cost.
The Pearson Air Museum also hosted over 100 local community events
annually. We believed that since the community built and funded the
museum, the doors should be open to everyone for special community
events--for example, benefit concerts for the military, church picnics,
weddings and proms. By opening the doors of the museum to the
community, at low rental rates, we were also able to sustain
operations. Since the museum opened its doors in 1995, it has operated
using a sustainability model with the purpose of independently
supporting operations and educational programs without federal funds.
Last month, Pearson Air Museum was vacated. We did not take that
step lightly, but did so only because the NPS terminated the
longstanding cooperative agreement that had been expected to last well
into the next decade. NPS's termination was based on what appeared,
frankly, to be arbitrary grounds. The community's partnership to
operate the museum that had worked so well, for so long, was suddenly
fraught with new problems. For over a year we tried to work through all
the issues raised by the NPS in order to save the museum ourselves. Our
attempts failed.
Today, I am here to ask you to support H.R. 716. It will save the
Pearson Air Museum by directing the Secretary of the Interior to convey
the seven-acre air museum complex to the City of Vancouver. Our
community is ready to restore the museum to what it once was. To do
that, we ask for your help.
II. History of the Pearson Air Museum Complex
The National Park Service property that is the subject of H.R. 716
was originally owned by the City of Vancouver. In 1972, the City sold
the NPS 72 acres of airfield property for $7,562 an acre, including the
seven-acre parcel on which the Pearson Air Museum complex currently
sits. This was motivated, in part, to allow the City to move active
airport operations further away from the NPS's reconstruction of
historic Fort Vancouver.
The Pearson Air Museum complex, as it stands today, was developed
in 1995, pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the City and the
NPS. The NPS gave the community permission to build the air museum on a
small parcel of NPS's larger historic site that was adjacent to the
city-owned, and also historic, Pearson Airfield. The cooperative
agreement expressly provided that the contract was ``to reflect the
relationship between the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site and the
City because the principal purpose of the relationship is to carry out
a public purpose . . . rather than to acquire property or services for
the direct benefit of the United States Government.'' The cooperative
agreement was drafted to remain in effect until at least 2025, with
renewals thereafter. In reliance on the cooperative agreement, the City
and the community raised $4.2 million for capital investment in the
museum complex.
In 1996, Congress formally incorporated the larger 366-acre
Vancouver National Historic Reserve, which the community refers to as
the Fort Vancouver National Site, as a partnership between the NPS and
the City of Vancouver. This included the Jack Murdock Aviation Center,
the seven-acre complex on which the Pearson Air Museum hangars are
located. A copy of that legislation is included in your materials. You
will also find an aerial photo of the Reserve and a site map.
For approximately 10 years, the Pearson Air Museum was managed and
operated on behalf of the City by The Pearson Field Historical Society.
In 2005, my organization, the Fort Vancouver National Trust, assumed
this responsibility. Since 2005 there has been a minimum $2 million
operating investment by the Trust and the City, and similar operational
support was provided through the Pearson Society and City from 1995
until 2005. I estimate the total community investments in the Pearson
Air Museum to be well over $8 million, inclusive of initial capital
contributions and operational support since the museum complex was
developed. Over these past 18 years, the NPS has contributed negligible
capital and operational support to the museum.
The Pearson Air Museum's exhibits, including planes, were owned by
the Trust or were on loan to the Trust by the local aviation community.
The Trust's annual budget for Museum operations and educational
programs was over $300,000. This capital commitment was augmented by
our more than 35 community volunteers who contribute more than 5,000
hours each year.
III. Education and Community Events at the Pearson Air Museum
The Trust viewed its investment in the museum complex as mission
driven for educational programs, and we have been extremely successful
in developing a community asset that inspires and educates about the
Golden Age of Aviation while equipping students with skills for their
future. For example, we have worked with the regional high schools and
other educational partners to provide cutting edge STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math) curriculum that is steeped in history
as part of a Careers in Aerospace program; established a partnership
with Air Science Kids for their after-school program; developed a
series of week-long aviation summer camps; created specialized tours
for the Washington State School for the Blind and School for the Deaf,
which are both located in Vancouver; and initiated an Aviation Merit
Badge program for the Boy Scouts of America. A list of many of the
programs developed, partnerships forged, and assets secured is included
in your attachments.
Since the Museum opened its doors in 1995, events were incorporated
into a sustainability model to help support operations and educational
programs. Each year, we facilitated over 100 community events, and we
believe that since the community contributed the capital to build and
operate the museum complex, the community should be able to utilize and
enjoy the facilities through special events as well as general
visitation. In fact, because of our low rental rates, the museum has
been a primary event site for nonprofits such as the YWCA, Northwest
Association of Blind Athletes, Southwest Washington Medical Center
Foundation, March of Dimes, Rotary Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis
Society, and the Chamber of Commerce, to name just a few.
IV. Loss of the Museum
In early February, the NPS Superintendent Tracy Fortmann issued a
letter to the City and the Trust that NPS was terminating the
cooperative agreement, and the Superintendent announced that her staff
would be assuming control of the Pearson Air Museum. The Trust was
given less than 48 hours' notice to turn over keys and alarm codes.
Because we could not simply turn over to a third party our exhibits and
those on loan from generous donors for which the Trust had stewardship
responsibility, we were effectively forced to vacate, leaving the
museum empty. Today, the Pearson Air Museum contains some new NPS-owned
exhibits--a boat, a tractor, a steam powered car--but it is no longer
the air museum it once was. Included with my statement are photographs
that reflect the change.
The community response to the loss of the Pearson Air Museum has
been stunning: protests, signs in the windows of local businesses,
editorials and letters to the editor calling for transfer of the museum
from the NPS to the City, children collecting signatures to send to
their federal and local representatives. If you Google, ``Save Pearson
Air Museum'' you will find postings that reflect the real sense of loss
by the community.
It is very disappointing that it came to this. While the
partnership between the NPS, the City and the Trust was successful for
many years, the relationship between the NPS and the Trust recently
began to inexplicably deteriorate, and the Trust's Executive Committee
could not understand why.
Our Executive Committee flew to San Francisco to meet with Chris
Lehnertz, the NPS Pacific West Regional Director, seeking to re-
establish a positive relationship. It was not a successful effort. The
Regional Director told us that NPS regulations are the same for all NPS
parks and that our site is no different than Yellowstone in this
respect. The Director also told us that under those regulations the
Superintendent was to have unilateral control of anything on NPS land.
We understand the NPS must follow its own rules, as it interprets them;
however, the position that the NPS has expressed with regard to the
Pearson Air Museum will not work well for our community.
During the discussion that led up to the termination of the
cooperative agreement, we were asked to sign a new agreement that,
among other provisions, would have required:
The transfer of ownership and management of the Trust's
collections and exhibits to the NPS.
The Trust to agree to submit to the unilateral authority
of the NPS Superintendent over all programs, activities and events.
Current relationships and agreements the Trust had with
education partners would be transferred to NPS management, and the NPS
would also prohibit the Trust from entering into any other agreements
with education partners.
NPS authorization of all of the more than 100 events
inside and outside the museum complex with very restrictive criteria
for approvals.
NPS approval of all Trust income and expenditures
associated with the museum complex, even though the NPS would bear no
financial responsibility for operational or capital support for the
museum complex.
A primary justification for the NPS termination of the current
agreement was an assertion that the Trust was not acting in accordance
with NPS laws and regulations because the Trust had approved certain
events that the Park Service deemed inappropriate for the museum
complex. These include an All Church Picnic, a USO benefit concert, and
a benefit concert for veterans called the Night of the Patriot. In
addition to being wonderful community events, we believed that they
were especially well suited to the site because many of our area
churches originated at Fort Vancouver and the Army had been on the site
from 1849 until last year. The NPS effectively prohibited these outdoor
events by imposing so many restrictions that they were no longer
feasible to hold as planned. The determination by the NPS that these
events were unsuitable for the site was perplexing to me, as events
comparable to those being denied have been held since the museum opened
in 1995 and elsewhere on NPS property.
For example, one reason that a church picnic and the two benefit
concerts were not allowed was because amplified music was deemed by the
NPS to interfere with the tranquility of the site. The Reserve is in
the middle of the City, and a highway, a freeway, and a rail line
border the site. It is under the flight path of the nearby Portland
International Airport and, of course, there is an active airfield on
the site which has a runway that is parallel to the entire length of
the Fort palisade. It is a wonderful gathering place, but it is far
from tranquil.
Further, the All Church Picnic, which is a community picnic that
brings together church members from across the county, had been held
successfully at the Museum site for the three previous summers. Last
summer, the Chief Historian at the park suddenly informed picnic
organizers that their event lacked a meaningful association with the
park (where a number of the earliest churches in the Northwest were
established) and effectively denied the event, forcing it to be
canceled. This struck us as curious, since NPS had itself permitted
other church events, with music, on its grounds.
For many years the NPS has permitted Fourth of July celebrations to
occur at the Reserve that draw 35,000 people, feature bands, amplified
music, fireworks, and all of the types of activities that one would
expect to find at an urban park. The NPS has also recruited and
permitted a National Cross Country Championship on its property for the
past 3 years, which last Fall involved driving some 500 metal ``T'' and
flag string posts into the ground throughout the park to mark the
course. At the same time the NPS has recently applied what has seemed
like a very different set of standards to events proposed by the local
community--raising concerns about ``archeological sensitivities'' of
the grounds, amplified music, tranquility, and the number of community
attendees--and in the last year, the NPS's permitting practices caused
a number of long running, successful community events to be canceled.
These are just a few examples that highlight what many in the local
community believe to be are the contradictory, subjective, and
arbitrary application of the NPS's regulations to events at the Pearson
Air Museum over the past year. From our perspective, the new found
concerns about long-running events seemed more like a justification to
terminate the cooperative agreement and assume federal control of the
air museum, than an even-handed application of the permitting policies
that the NPS is entrusted to enforce.
V. Conclusion
The Pearson Air Museum's exhibits are now in storage hangars at the
nearby city-owned airfield and our museum staff, volunteers, and
community members are working diligently to save the museum. H.R. 716
gives us hope.
In their film series, Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan asserted that the
creation of our National Parks was ``America's best idea,'' and I
agree. A primary focus of their film was on our natural resource parks,
with their unsurpassed grandeur. Indeed, it is from these National
Parks that many of the regulations governing use of our National Parks
were created, and therein lies part of the challenge confronting our
community. What H.R. 716 accomplishes is that it relieves the NPS of
its regulatory burdens that appear to be preventing it from allowing
the museum to flourish, as it had done for so many years.
This legislation will save the Pearson Air Museum by directing the
Secretary of the Interior to convey the seven-acre air museum complex
to the City of Vancouver. Our community is ready to restore the museum
so that it can continue to provide the educational programming and
services on which the community has come to rely.
Accordingly, the Trust and the City of Vancouver ask you to support
H.R. 716.
______
Letter From Elson Strahan
Fort Vancouver National Trust,
Vancouver, Washington,
March 19, 2013.
The Honorable Doc Hastings,
Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1329 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey:
I appreciated the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 716
before the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental
Regulation on March 14, 2013. Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, as well as the other members of the committee, were very
thorough in their review of this proposed legislation. The bill would
direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Pearson Aviation
Museum complex, including the main and historic hangars, headquarters,
and munitions building, and the approximately 7-acre complex site to
the city of Vancouver, Washington. This correspondence is supplemental
to the written testimony I submitted for the hearing.
Although we were not surprised that the National Park Service
opposes this legislation, I was quite surprised by the erroneous
statements made by the NPS representative, Dr. Herbert Frost, in both
his written and oral testimony. Dr. Frost indicated that removal of
this land from the management of the National Park Service would
diminish the level of protection afforded to this area and would
diminish the integrity of resources. However, this site has in fact has
been under City and Trust management since the community developed the
museum complex 18 years ago. He also stated that this bill would create
a non-Federal area within the boundaries of the park and that this
presented a challenge because the City-owned and NPS-owned adjacent
sites would be managed by different entities according to different
standards for resource protection and special events management.
While the transfer of the Pearson Air Museum property to the City
would result in different entities owning and managing different
properties, this would not be a new circumstance. The city of Vancouver
owns Officers Row, the West Barracks, the Pearson Airport complex, and
half of the Pearson Field runway, as well as Old Apple Tree Park, the
Water Resources Education Center and adjoining wetlands. The Fort
Vancouver National Trust has had a master lease to develop and manage
Officers Row and the West Barracks, and also managed the Pearson Air
Museum Complex on behalf of the City.
The ``Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management of 1966''
established the boundaries of the 366-acre Vancouver National Historic
Reserve, which includes both National Park Service and city of
Vancouver property. Thus, while H.R. 716 would create a non-Federal
area within the boundaries of the federally incorporated Reserve, this
is not a new development as the City already owns substantial portions
of historic properties within the Reserve and through the incorporation
of City and National Park properties as a National Historic Reserve the
City has subjected itself to Federal standards, as well as parallel
Washington State standards enforced through the Washington State
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation.
I have attached a copy of a map showing the property ownership on
the site as well as a more detailed site map. The total area
incorporated within the footprint of the Reserve created by Federal
legislation is under the protection of Federal standards.
The Omnibus legislation provides that the Reserve is to be
administered through a general management plan. In that adopted plan
the City and the NPS stipulated that, while the different parts of the
Reserve are managed pursuant to the laws of the respective authorities,
for management purposes they have the same goals. All the land within
the Reserve boundary is on the National Register of Historic Places and
the City agreed that the management of their properties will be in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation and the Directors
Order No. 28, National Park Service Cultural Resources Management
Guideline 1998. The City also agreed with the NPS that a principal goal
of managing the area is ``Preservation of historic structures, physical
assets, and cultural landscapes. ``
Further, through a memorandum of agreement, the City has stipulated
that the National Park Service is the designated the lead agency for
the purposes of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106
undertakings proposed by the City on City-owned or managed property
within the Reserve. More specifically, the City has designated the
Superintendent of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site as the lead
agency official with the legal responsibility for compliance with the
Federal historic preservation and archeology regulations, which the
Reserve legislation contemplated and to which the City has agreed, and
which is compliant with 36 CFR 800: Protection of Historic Properties,
which states: ``The agency official may be a State, local, or tribal
government official who has been delegated legal responsibility for
compliance with section 106 in accordance with Federal law.''
Not only are the City and the Trust committed to respecting these
properties in accordance with the Federal standards, we are bound by
them. Within the perimeter of the Reserve all property is protected
regardless of ownership. We have many examples to illustrate how the
NPS, as the site's cultural resources expert, is routinely called upon
by the City and the Trust whenever a proverbial shovel goes in the
ground, or the historic fabric of a building is in need of repair or
replacement.
During his oral testimony, Dr. Frost also stated that the air
museum property is adjacent to a Native American burial ground. This is
also not true. The cemetery to which Dr. Frost refers is the cemetery
established during the development of the Hudson's Bay Company
operations and records do indicate that Native Americans and Native
Hawaiians were buried in this cemetery.
However, the cemetery is nowhere near the air museum grounds and is
instead on the opposite end of the site in the East Barracks, which was
recently transferred from the Army to the NPS. I have attached a map
prepared by the National Park Service showing that the Hudson's Bay
Cemetery boundary within the East Barracks, mapped through a joint
NPS--U.S. Army survey from 2000 to 2003.
I appreciate that the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and the Yakama Nation
are understandably concerned by the written and oral testimony offered
by Dr. Frost on behalf of the National Park Service indicating that the
Federal protections would be removed if the air museum site was
transferred to the City and that the air museum property is next to the
Hudson's Bay Cemetery.
Unfortunately, both assertions are gross misrepresentations of the
facts.
Furthermore, beyond the required compliance of the City already
noted above, there are other controlling Federal regulations that
provide the site protection of cultural resources associated with City-
owned property:
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
requires all governmental agencies, including the City, ``to
eliminate interference with the free exercise of Native
religion.''
Under the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990, both Federal lands and private lands
that receive Federal funds are subject to NAGPRA. The Pearson
Air Museum did receive a $325,000 Federal appropriation and the
site is therefore subject to NAGPRA. Further, the City receives
multiple Federal funds and according to NAGPRA any local
government that receives Federal funds is automatically subject
to NAGPRA.
With respect to the Archeological Resources Protection
Act of 1979, since the City is already subject to section 106
of the NHPA the City is in compliance with the ARPA.
Some of the erroneous information contained in Dr. Frost's written
testimony was corrected during the hearing, but it is important to
correct the written record so there is absolutely no confusion about
the fact that the transfer of the museum property from the Park Service
to the City will not compromise its protection under Federal standards
and that the site is in fact not adjacent to Native ancestral remains,
which are in a cemetery located in the East Barracks on the opposite
side of the historic site, and owned by the National Park Service.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Elson Strahan,
President and CEO.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Elson Strahan
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Rob Bishop
Question. What are the gross revenues from rental of the Pearson
Air Museum for 2009, 2010, and 2011? Also, what are the gross revenues
from the sale of items at the bookstore?
Answer. Below are the gross and net rental revenues for the Pearson
Air Museum. As we have finalized our numbers for 2012 I have also
included this information. In addition, I am not only providing you
with our gross retail revenues, I have also included the retail
revenues net of cost of goods sold for the bookstore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearson Air Museum 2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Revenue $82,400 $82,545 $83,778 $90,677
Expenses--Event Manager, $68,510 $69,802 $77,335 $69,098
Labor, Janitorial, Other
-------------------------------------------
Net Revenue $13,890 $12,743 $6,443 $21,579
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expenses include our events manager, who also assisted with
staffing the Museum and working with our volunteers. This position,
plus all of our other event related expenses, are not only fully
covered through our rentals, but we also capture some excess revenue to
help support Museum operations and education programs.
As I noted in my testimony before the Subcommittee, since the
Museum opened its doors in 1995, space rental was incorporated into a
sustainability model as we hosted over 100 local community events each
year. We believed that since the community contributed the capital to
build and operate the museum complex, the community should be able to
utilize and enjoy the facilities through special events as well as
general visitation.
Because of our comparatively low rental rates as contrasted with
commercial venues, the museum has been a primary event site for
nonprofits such as the YWCA, Northwest Association of Blind Athletes,
Southwest Washington Medical Center Foundation, March of Dimes, Rotary
Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Chamber of Commerce, to
name just a few. However, as you will note with respect to our net
revenue, events were certainly not our primary source of income. Events
also provided the added benefit of introducing the Museum to guests who
were part of our over 35,000 visitors each year, and we work to turn
these event attendees in to general visitors, participants in our
education programs, and donors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearson Air Museum 2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Gross Revenue $23,814 $22,934 $22,568 $22,904
Retail Revenues Net
Cost of Goods Sold $10,528 $10,718 $8,919 $8,362
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While our retail bookstore serves to generate income, it is also an
integral part of our educational programming. Accordingly, a primary
focus on what we merchandise is how materials will contribute to the
learning experience, as opposed to simply maximizing profit margin. The
net revenue reported here is strictly the difference between the cost
of the goods purchased and sold. Consequently, while net revenues do
not fully cover our retail staff member, it does help offset this
personnel cost. Just as our events manager assists with the management
of the Museum, so too does our retail manager, and the net retail
revenue helps to sustain this position.
The balance of our funding comes from general donations, grants,
and memberships. Nevertheless, the Trust has always subsidized the
Museum but regards this as support of our core education and
interpretation mission.
Question. In a follow-up letter to the Committee you claim that the
City and the Trust are required to comply with American Indian
Religious Freedom Act of 1978, the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act of 1990, and the National Historic Protection Act.
Is this based on legal opinion provided to the Trust? If so, can you
please provide that opinion.
Answer. The Trust did not seek a legal opinion because the Trust
and the City in practice have acted in accordance with these very
important protective standards. However, subsequent to testifying
before your committee, I participated in a meeting on March 26th
initiated by Representative Herrera Beutler, which included several
individuals representing the Cowlitz Tribe, which had filed a letter of
concern about HR 716. The representatives were Dave Burlingame,
Cultural Resource Department; Philip Harju, Legal Counsel; and William
Iyall, Chairman. The meeting also included Vancouver's Mayor Pro Tem
and the City Manager's Program and Policy Development Manager.
During that meeting I noted our understanding that these Federal
protective standards applied to the City's property, and to the Trust
as the City's property manager, for the reasons stated in my
supplemental testimony of March 19th. The response from these Cowlitz
Tribal leaders was that our interpretation of the applicability of
these federal laws was correct.
However, these leaders indicated that from their experience local
governments do not always willingly comply with these Federal laws and
the tribes must sometimes resort to legal action to compel compliance,
while the National Park Service much more readily acknowledges and
abides by these regulations. Accordingly, while these representatives
believe as we do that the City and Trust are bound by these protective
regulations, they are simply more comfortable with land under the
jurisdiction of the NPS. While we understand that some local
jurisdictions may not readily comply with these Federal protective
standards, the record of and the obligations assumed by the City of
Vancouver and the Trust clearly demonstrate that we are in alignment
with these laws.
Beyond this general understanding, we are clearly bound to abide by
these regulations for several reasons, as indicated in my letter of
March 19, 2013:
The 1996 legislation establishing the Reserve requires
that the Reserve be administered through a general management
plan. All the land within the Reserve boundary is on the
National Register of Historic Places and in the general
management plan the City agreed that the protection of their
properties will be in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation as well as the Directors Order No. 28, National
Park Service Cultural Resources Management Guideline 1998.
Through a memorandum of agreement, the City has
stipulated that the National Park Service is the designated
lead agency for the purposes of National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) Section 106 undertakings proposed by the City on
City-owned or managed property within the Reserve. The City has
also designated the Superintendent of the Fort Vancouver
National Historic Site as the lead agency official with the
legal responsibility for compliance with the federal historic
preservation and archeology regulations, compliant with 36 CFR
800: Protection of Historic Properties.
I also noted the following:
We believe The American Indian Religious Freedom Act
of 1978 requires all governmental agencies, including the City,
``to eliminate interference with the free exercise of Native
religion.''
In asserting its applicability the following authority clarifies
our obligation:
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978:
http://www.narf.org/pubs/nlr/nlr5-1.pdf Native American Relief
Fund Announcements Newsletter, Winter 1979:
Page 7: This Act, however, applies only to Federal or
Federally-related activities. However, although there
must be a Federal connection, it does not have to be
direct Federal action itself for the Act to apply.
Federal funds which support organizations or colleges
whose activities are violating a Native group's
religious rights may be sufficient Federal connection
to invoke the Act.
Of course, the City receives Federal funds and accordingly has an
associated Federal connection that allows the act to be invoked.
However, not only are the City--and the Trust as its agent--bound
by this Federal law, the City has demonstrated leadership in promoting
the free exercise of Native religion. For example, attached is a flyer
for the 16th Annual Memorial to remember Chief Redheart's band, for
which Nez Perce tribal members travel to the Fort Vancouver site to
conduct a traditional memorial to honor their ancestors. After the
ceremony, a traditional Native American meal is prepared and served by
the Northwest Indian Veterans Association, which will be held in the
City-owned Artillery Barracks. This ceremony was initiated by the City
when Vancouver's Mayor traveled to Lapwai, Idaho to extend an
invitation to the Nez Perce to come to Vancouver.
With respect to the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990, I stated that:
Both federal lands and private lands that receive
federal funds are subject to NAGPRA. Accordingly, we believe
that since the Pearson Air Museum did receive a $325,000
federal appropriation from the Department of Interior the site
is therefore subject to NAGPRA.
More specifically, the following National Park Service citation
validates our understanding that NAGPRA would be applicable if the Air
Museum property was transferred to the City:
NAGRPA: http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/FAQ/INDEX.HTM
-- Page 2: ``Who is responsible for complying with NAGPRA''--
All public and private museums that have received Federal
funds, other than the Smithsonian Institution, are subject to
NAGPRA.
-- 25 U.S.C. 3001 Definitions: (8) ``museums'' means any
institution or State or local government agency (including any
institution of higher learning) that receives Federal funds and
has possession of, or control over, Native American cultural
items. Such term does not include the Smithsonian or any other
Federal agency.
Finally, I stated that:
With respect to the Archeological Resources Protection
Act of 1979, since the City is already subject to section 106
of the NHPA the City is in compliance with the ARPA.
Language contained in the National Historic Preservation Act
supports this conclusion:
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966: http://
www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm:
-- Section 2 (16 U.S.C. 470):
It shall be the policy of the Federal Government, in
cooperation with other nations and in partnership with the
States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private
organizations and individuals to--
(4) contribute to the preservation of nonfederally
owned prehistoric and historic resources and give
maximum encouragement to organizations and individuals
undertaking preservation by private means;
(5) encourage the public and private preservation and
utilization of all usable element of the Nation's
historic built environment; and
(6) assist State and local governments, Indian tribes
and Native Hawaiian organizations and the National
Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to
expand and accelerate their historic preservation
programs and activities.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Strahan.
Mr. Frost, do you have a statement on this particular bill?
Dr. Frost. Yes, I do.
Dr. Frost. The Department strongly opposes the enactment of
H.R. 716. This legislation requires the conveyance to the City
of Vancouver of 7 acres of Federal land within the boundaries
of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site.
The bill would create a non-Federal area within the
boundaries of the Park. These adjacent sites would be managed
by different entities according to different standards for
resource protection and special events management, and would
create not only confusion for the public, but also friction in
their management. This would likely adversely affect the
resources of the surrounding National Park areas, while
creating a cumulative negative effect on the Park, its setting,
and the visitor understanding of its significance. Such a
conveyance would threaten the values and resources of the
National Historic Site by removing Federal protection under
cultural resource preservation laws.
Pearson Air Museum has been a vital and valued partner of
the Park for the past 18 years. And the National Park Service
has worked with the partners, including the City of Vancouver,
to ensure that the museum's resources are preserved, and that
it is open and accessible to the public. The National Park
Service and the City of Vancouver dissolved their cooperative
agreement on February 1, 2013, which canceled the subagreement
the City of Vancouver had with the Fort Vancouver National
Trust to operate the Pearson Air Museum and coordinate events
on the surrounding 7-acre property.
The National Park Service understands the goals of local
residents in the City of Vancouver to have the Pearson Air
Museum open, and we have achieved that shared goal. We are
looking forward to working with the City of Vancouver to
reinstall exhibits. We are also actively working with the
public, who are interested in holding special events at the
site. And we have already issued several permits in the near
future. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. We appreciate both of you presenting your
testimony. We will turn to questions on this particular bill to
the Committee. Ms. Herrera Beutler, we will turn to you first.
Do you have questions for this one?
Mr. Young. Maybe.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let's start with you.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am
going to make these brief, because I have a lot. And so please
be brief in your answers. I am going to direct these first
couple to Dr. Frost.
Have you reviewed the FOIA document submitted by the
Committee?
Dr. Frost. I have not seen that, no.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. OK. So we have heard now for months--
and you expressed it in your statement--that the Park Service
has worked in earnest to find a solution to the disagreements
between these interested parties. Now that it is public that
the Park Service has been planning to take over the museum,
which was built with private funds, and all of the property
held in the museum, which is all private property, either owned
or on loan to the Trust, do you still stand by the claims of
the good faith discussions and negotiations here?
Dr. Frost. As I understand it--and, like I said, I haven't
seen the FOIA material--what you are referring to is that in
2010 the City of Vancouver had given notice to the Park Service
that it was going to be unable to operate the museum and the
facility there in 2016. And so, we began preparations in
advance of that. So it wasn't a takeover, but it was planning
in anticipation of what the City had told us was going to
happen in the future.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. And, Mr. Strahan, are you
aware that that conversation was a planned event, or were you
aware that they were talking about assuming responsibilities
that you had?
Mr. Strahan. I was not aware that they were planning on
assuming responsibilities. As for the contract with the City,
the reason that the City was going to have to terminate--or
thought it might--the agreement that was supposed to go until
2025 was because there was a financial requirement that they
contribute approximately $75,000 in utilities and maintenance,
and they were unable, because of the City budget, to do that.
So, our organization stepped up and said we would cover the
difference, as we have been paying for the museum all along.
And at that point the City said there was no reason to cancel
the agreement.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. Second question, again, to Dr.
Frost. Your testimony states that removing the property from
the Federal ownership would remove the Federal protections.
According to the Trust, the entire site, including the City-
owned Officers Row, where my district office sits, and the West
Barracks--not to be confused with the boarded-up East
Barracks--is under the Secretary of the Interior standard, as
the entire site is on the Register. Why would the museum be any
different? And why would it be removed from those protections,
if the other City-owned buildings are not?
Dr. Frost. Well, I am not an expert on cultural resource
law and policy, but I will give it my best. And we may have to
get back with you. But, as I understand it, so this is going to
be a transfer of title of land out of the hands of the Federal
Government into the hands of a non-governmental organization.
And, as a result of that, the Park Service could not manage--
the Federal Government couldn't have the same amount of
oversight and management of those cultural resources.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So can I--have you ever been to Fort
Vancouver?
Dr. Frost. I have not.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. You have not. OK. So when you look at
those boarded-up pictures of the historic Army barracks that
the Park Service is managing, would you say the Park Service is
doing an acceptable job of maintaining the quality and the
integrity of the resource, as compared with the buildings that
the Trust manages, that is City-owned, the property that my
office sits on? I can tell you it is in pristine historic
condition. We are not even allowed to mess with the flowers,
OK?
So would you say that in that situation it is best for the
Park Service to continue to manage that, when at this point we
have now lost the educational interpretative services because
the Park Service simply hasn't, doesn't--and we are not even
sure has the money to--continue to provide them?
Dr. Frost. Well, I think you just hit the key right there.
I think, within the resources that we have available for Fort
Vancouver National Historic Site, we are doing the best job
that we can.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So wouldn't you say, at a time like
this, across the Nation, when we are struggling, we know you
don't have all the resources you need. We know that. Everybody
is hurting. At this time, shouldn't we take extraordinary
measures to maintain public-private partnerships, where there
is an active partner that raises money to help facilitate this
public resource? Wouldn't you say that this is what we want to
preserve and replicate, not just board things up and say,
``Well, my way or the highway''?
Dr. Frost. I would agree with you 100 percent, but the key
is not the partnership itself. I think we are fully vested in
private-public partnership. It is the scale of the events that
the partnership wants to do. And if it is a----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So let me jump in there, because one
thing that the Park Service runs every year, I love, I have
gone to since I was a kid, is the Fourth of July Celebration on
those grounds. Hundreds of thousands of people have come. I
don't think the Trust has ever done an event anywhere near that
size. I guess I would say that you are kind of comparing--you
are not comparing apples to apples here, if we are talking
about footprint.
Dr. Frost. I am not talking about footprint, per se. I am
talking about the size and the scale, but also of the
relationship of the event to why the Park was established. It
is----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So can I----
Mr. Bishop. All right. There will be another round that you
can ask questions.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Can I just make one clarification here for the
record? I think the gentleman stated that this would be
conveyed to a private entity. Is that what your bill does? To a
private entity, or to the City?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. To the City. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. All right, thank you.
Dr. Frost. My apologies.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions on this
bill?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, if I may. Dr. Frost, the testimony from
the Trust claims that events that were previously approved were
no longer approved by the current superintendent. So my
question. Is this a case of a change in Park leadership, or a
change in the standards and operating procedures?
Dr. Frost. Again, I think it goes back to when I started to
answer the congresswoman's question, is that size and scale has
effect, but it is also how the event relates back to the
purpose of the Park. And if you can connect the purpose of the
event to the purpose of the Park, and you can pull off the
event within the regulations, guidelines, and laws that we have
to follow, we are right there with them, wanting to do those
types of events.
And so, as these events have changed over time, and the
trusts have been unwilling to meet our requirements that we are
required by Federal law, policy, and regulation, that is where
we come to the impasse. So, we want to work with the trusts, we
want to work with the City. We want to have this partnership.
But if it is a partnership, it has to be a true partnership.
And so we have regulations and guidelines that have to be
followed, and we just can't ignore those.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. My question is to one of uniformity. Is
it a uniform standard, or is it leadership interpretation, or
decisionmaking by a different leader? I think that is----
Dr. Frost. Well, I----
Mr. Grijalva. It is kind of a crux question, to a great
degree, but----
Dr. Frost. Right.
Mr. Grijalva. I will leave it. Mr. Strahan, how much income
did the Trust receive from rental revenues?
Mr. Strahan. Our budget is about $300,000 for operations of
the museum. Currently we subsidize, of that amount, about
$30,000 out of general trust revenue. The events account for
about 36 percent of the operating revenue for the museum.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. So were the revenues from the bookstore
and the rental of the museum for other private or other public
activities, is that the largest share of the total income for
the Trust?
Mr. Strahan. Yes, the 36 percent. But however, the
remainder is made up--we had annual members of the museum, the
bookstore you mentioned, as well as general admissions and
other--just general contributions.
Mr. Grijalva. The reason I ask that--well, we will follow
up with a question, because----
Mr. Strahan. OK.
Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. As we added up the figures, it
was much more than 36 percent. And we will follow up and get
some clarification. Maybe it is our----
Mr. Strahan. Happy to provide that.
Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. Interpretation of the 990 Form,
interpreting it differently.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strahan. If I may?
Mr. Grijalva. Of course, please.
Mr. Strahan. The 990 Form is for the Trust as an overall
organization. We produce a variety of events. We have a
Marshall lecture series. We manage the properties on Officers
Row and the West Barracks. So the 990 Form, if you are looking
at the aggregate, really is dealing with an entire----
Mr. Grijalva. So when it says ``rental income'' in that 990
Form, it is not--you are saying it is not just rental of the--
--
Mr. Strahan. That is correct, Mr.----
Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. This property, but----
Mr. Strahan. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Maybe we will clarify that, so that we
have it for the record.
Mr. Strahan. OK.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Young, do you have
questions?
Mr. Young. This is for the Park Service. What regulations
are you talking about? And are these new regulations?
Dr. Frost. No, these are the regulations that, whenever we
permit a special use, we have our special use permit
regulations. And they are in the CFR. So any time we permit an
activity on the mall, or anywhere across the country--and we do
thousands of these--I mean they are the regulations that have
been passed. And so it is nothing new, it is nothing that has
been created----
Mr. Young. This is what I am leading up to. This
partnership has been going on for how many years, 18 years?
Mr. Strahan. Correct.
Mr. Young. So what different regulations are there that you
are trying to implement now that the partnership doesn't work?
Dr. Frost. I don't think the regulations have changed. I
think it is the----
Mr. Young. Then why did it work for 18 years?
Dr. Frost. I think over the last 3 or 4 years the size, the
scale, and the non-relationship of the event to the purposes of
the--the reason why the Park was created was the difference. So
it is not the regulations, it is the connection to the Park.
Mr. Young. But what I am looking--why does this even occur
when there was a working relationship benefiting the City and
the Trust and the Park Service? I mean what changed, that all
of a sudden we got some little genius--it wasn't you--at least
it better not have been you.
Dr. Frost. No, it was not me.
Mr. Young. Whose brainchild was this, to say, ``Oh, we are
going to change this now, and we are going to do this, because
we are the Park Service''?
Dr. Frost. Well, I don't think it was a sudden change. I
think that, like I said, over the years I think that we had
permitted activities for a number of years. And then one year
the Trust came in with a request and we said that in our view
it is not going to meet the standards that we require and the
regulations in our policies. And so----
Mr. Young. Yes.
Dr. Frost. And we didn't say no at that point in time. And
that was our mistake. And it has just sort of ramped up over
time.
And finally, we thought we would try to work behind the
scenes, work closely with the Trust to try to resolve our
differences, and that didn't work. And so, finally, this past
year we sort of held the line and said, ``We are going to have
to deny this activity if you don't scale it back to where we
think it is,'' and that is where sort of the negotiations broke
down.
Mr. Young. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Strahan. Yes, thank you very much. The regulations
haven't changed. But, in fact, events have occurred for--the
Independence Day Commemoration is in its 50th year. As far as
the relevance to the site, all of the--well, not all, but most
of the major churches in the community originated on that site:
the Episcopal church, the Catholic church, with Mother Joseph,
and the Protestant churches. So, our feeling was that since the
churches originated on the site, it made sense for an all-
church picnic to occur there.
The military has been on the site since 1849, until this
last round of BRAC closures, and they left this last fall. So
having a USO benefit concert or a concert, Night of the
Patriot, to really assist Iraq and Afghan veterans and their
families also seemed appropriate.
So that is where we are puzzled by the issue of relevance
and scale. As was already mentioned, Independence Day is over
35,000 people. The Park Service permitted the NAIA National
Cross County Championship, which has hundreds of participants,
and is certainly a very large and impactful event.
Mr. Young. And then you would say this decision was made
arbitrarily by the Park Service, because the City supports it,
the churches support it, the veterans support it, the people
support it. The only people that object to this is the Park
Service.
And again, I think the whole Park Service has to be looked
at by this Committee, Mr. Chairman, and the attitude. This is
for people, not the Park Service. I mean if you have a
regulation that doesn't meet the wishes of the people, who in
the hell are you? That is the thing. I don't understand where
this arrogance comes from. Comment on it. Where does it come
from?
Dr. Frost. Could I make a clarification? So we had actually
agreed to permit the church function this year. That wasn't the
issue. It was the other sort of--again, and this was really the
scale thing. There were jumbotrons, there was going to be a
band, there was going to be a stage with bands and things. And
so the----
Mr. Young. So, wait a minute. What is wrong with that? This
is for the people. How does that demean the Park?
Dr. Frost. Well, you have the historic--you have the area
around the Pearson Museum, but then you have Fort Vancouver
over here. And not everybody is here on the site, but you have
other people over at Fort Vancouver, trying to understand the
significance of Fort Vancouver, and its importance, and stuff.
And so the influence of this event on the rest of the Park----
Mr. Young. Well, but wait a minute. The rest of the Park?
How does that----
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Young. No, wait a minute. I want to just finish--just a
second. How does that affect----
Mr. Bishop. You have five; go for it.
Mr. Young. OK, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Because if you don't ask the question, I will.
Go ahead.
Mr. Young. OK, no, go ahead.
Mr. Bishop. No, no, no. Go ahead.
Mr. Young. How does it affect the Park? What is the damage
to the Park?
Dr. Frost. I won't say there is, but potentially there is
some resource damage, in terms of the setting up and the taking
down, and all that stuff. And I don't know how extensive that
is.
But it is not so much the Park, it is to the visitor
experience. So the visitors that aren't participating in the
event, that are participating in other aspects of the Park,
trying to listen to a ranger activity or something like that,
and you have a concert going on, and things like that, you have
two competing interests there.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Dr. Frost. And we are not saying----
Mr. Young. All right, all right.
Mr. Bishop. You got the answer there.
Ms. Hanabusa, do you have questions on this particular
bill?
Ms. Hanabusa. Yes, I do. Mr. Strahan, is that----
Mr. Strahan. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Am I saying that correctly?
Mr. Strahan. That is fine, thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa. Can you tell me, have you spoken to the City
of Vancouver? And are they OK, is it within their procedures to
accept the land, if transferred?
Mr. Strahan. The city of--oh, to transfer? Yes. There is a
letter in your packet from the City Manager indicating that.
Ms. Hanabusa. And I heard earlier that part of the problem
was they didn't want to pay the electrical cost, or something.
I think that is what Mr. Frost said. So they are able to assume
all of the necessary financial responsibilities.
Mr. Strahan. The Trust is able to cover that element of the
contract.
Ms. Hanabusa. But the City of Vancouver is going to be the
recipient of the land. So I want to know what the City's
position is. If the Trust, for example, runs out of money, it
is going to fall on the City. So has the City said that it has
the contingency funds and is willing and able to, in fact,
accept the responsibility of the Park Service lands, if they
were to come over?
Mr. Strahan. I presume that, since the City is supporting
the legislation, they would certainly understand that there is
an inherent risk and are willing to accept it.
Ms. Hanabusa. But you don't know for sure if they have
created an account or anything like that for this specific
transfer.
Mr. Strahan. No, I do not.
Ms. Hanabusa. If it were to occur.
Mr. Strahan. No.
Ms. Hanabusa. OK. Mr. Frost, in reading your testimony, I
was struck by the fact that you mentioned what we call NAGRA,
the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, and the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act, that you felt that somehow the
transfer of these lands would remove Federal protections for
the cultural resources and preservation of land.
My one question is--well, my question is, why do you feel
that is a potential threat? And, in addition to that, what part
of the lands that would potentially transfer would raise this
specific concern?
Dr. Frost. So that land has been there for many hundreds of
thousands of years, right? And so there are many layers that
are on top of the land that--obviously, you have the Native
American culture. That was there way before any of the white
people showed up. And so there is that lens in which there is
significant archeological data, not only on the 7 acres that we
are talking about, but throughout the whole Park. On top of
that, then you have the Hudson Bay Company that came in and
built the Fort, and the whole understanding of the culture that
happened there. Then you have the Army coming in and doing the
work that they did.
And so, with these many different layers, it is not as
discreet. Cultural protection isn't as easy as drawing a line
around an area and say, ``You can protect this and you can't
protect that.'' If you don't understand it in context, it is
basically useless.
So, our concern is if this 7 acres is removed from Federal
ownership, that our ability to protect those resources under
those laws will be severely diminished, because we don't own
the land any more. We don't have management of the land. It is
going to be managed by the City of Vancouver, or possibly
another entity. And so we still have the laws there, but the
ability for us to get access and things like that, it just
creates a bureaucracy that doesn't need to be created.
Ms. Hanabusa. Well, my understanding is that these laws are
there, and that the City of Vancouver wouldn't be able to
simply ignore these laws just because of a transfer of the
rights.
So the other question I have is, are there specific
cultural sites that you are concerned about that would be
transferred in the 7 acres itself? Like a burial site for
example, or some kind of a historic artifact of some sort? Is
there something like that within the 7 acres?
Dr. Frost. Absolutely. The historic fort footprint is much
larger than just the standing re-creation of the fort. You have
the whole complex of the fort, which is very large. And so you
have all of the archeological records--I mean archeological
significance that are within part of that 7 acres of the fort's
footprint.
In addition, I don't believe there are any burial sites.
There is a Native American cemetery that is right adjacent to
the 7 acres that, again, it concerns us about how the
activities occur on those things, and the appropriateness of
the activity's relation to the cemetery, and the other cultural
aspects of the larger National Historic Site.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Mr. Chair, my time is
up. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Garcia, do you have a question
to this particular bill? If not, I do have a couple of
questions.
I will start with Mr. Strahan, let me ask you a couple of
questions, first, and then I will get to Mr. Frost. And one of
the things you should know, Mr. Frost, is when you are in a
hole you should quit digging.
But you were given 48 hours to turn over the key?
Mr. Strahan. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Was that the way it was supposed to have been?
Mr. Strahan. No. Under the cooperative agreement, if the
contract was terminated, then there was supposed to be 180 days
for a transition to occur.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I don't know if that number there--but
there was supposed to be several--yes, some time.
Can you tell me very succinctly what you have done to try
and fix this situation with the Park Service on behalf of the
Trust?
Mr. Strahan. Mr. Chairman, clarification. To fix the
situation with the Park Service?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. What you have done to resolve this
situation prior to legislation.
Mr. Strahan. We have worked, Mr. Chairman, for the past
year, trying to get this situation resolved with the Park
Service. And what occurred was that the--in tandem with this--
was that the Park Service was proposing a new agreement to be
signed. And when we wouldn't sign that agreement, then the
current agreement was canceled. The new agreement would have
required us to turn over all of our assets to the Park Service,
to have the site unilaterally managed under the supervision of
the Superintendent and a number of other issues. So that is why
we couldn't sign the new agreement.
Then the events issue came up, and that led to the
termination of the current agreement. And we have moved our
assets to hangars on Pearson Field.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let me go to Mr. Frost for just a
second. Your statement was that there would be resources within
Fort Vancouver that would be adversely impacted if this land
were given back to the City, which seems to be in direct
contradiction to what Director Jarvis has said, that you are
within your boundaries. So I don't want to hear any crap about
viewscapes or noisescapes, or anything like that.
Is there some specific resource within Fort Vancouver Park,
within the boundaries of that Park, which would negatively be
impacted if this were to be going into the City? And I want it
to be specific.
Dr. Frost. Again, I think, as I said earlier, the
archaeological resources----
Mr. Bishop. What archaeological resources?
Dr. Frost [continuing]. That are there as a result of the
larger fort complex. Not the fort itself, but the larger fort
complex, as a result--I mean Fort Vancouver was not just a
fort, but there were outbuildings, there were other----
Mr. Bishop. Within the boundaries of Fort Vancouver
National Park?
Dr. Frost. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. So having the City own this is going to destroy
the archaeology within the boundaries of the fort.
Dr. Frost. Well, within that seven--not going to--we are
not going----
Mr. Bishop. How within the 7 acres? Just within Fort
Vancouver National Park.
Dr. Frost. But the 7 acres are within the boundaries of--so
I guess I am not understanding your question.
Mr. Bishop. Obviously. Look. Let me try and make this a
statement, because I am getting very frustrated here. Both Ms.
Hanabusa and Mr. Young came to the crux of what the question
should be. This is not about policy, this is about personality.
There are two bills we have in front of this Committee because
the Park Service failed. It failed because the people on the
ground who have that uniform of the Park Service on were
authoritarian, arrogant, and autocratic. And that is a policy
only reserved for the U.S. Senate. Only Harry Reid and his band
of merry geezers can have that attitude.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. If the Park Service was willing to work with
people, this would not be here. There is no reason this bill or
the next bill should be here, except for the failure on the
part of the Park Service. So your testimony you have given is a
mass of platitudes that have no specific value to what we are
talking about here. This worked very well before the Park
Service got it, it worked very well until you had a change in
leadership at the Park Service. It can work very well if the
City has this land over again.
And all the other complaints about it that were written in
your testimony are silly. They are simply silly. You have not
failed, but the Park Service has failed over here. And you
should be ashamed of your record of activity up there. There is
no reason a bill like this should ever come before the House.
This should be solved easily and quickly at the local level.
And the Park Service has failed.
And that is why I said you are digging a deeper hole with
all the efforts at trying to rationalize your way out of the
failure that has happened up there. This should have been
solved on the local level years ago, but it has not been. And I
put the blame on the Park Service for this. Not on the Trust,
but on the Park Service. And it seems like the best way of
getting out of this is simply to remove the problem area, which
is the Park Service. That is why I said Mr. Young was the
nicest member of the panel in his attitude to what the Park
Service has actually done.
A second round of questions. I was the last----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Just a couple of clarifications. And I
think, Mr. Chairman, you summed it up. It really comes down to
the fact that this--it is such a shame that this is taking an
Act of Congress. It should have been fixed. I personally have
been involved in this since last May, when I started
conversations with the Park Service Director, called her on the
phone, said, ``We got a problem here locally, we got to fix
it.'' And from that point, I have felt very strongly that the
Park Service has resisted efforts.
You refer to partnership--and I apologize; you probably
don't know all the ins and outs of what has been happening--but
you referred to partnership. This Trust, along with the City,
has operated in partnership for, gosh, most of my life. I don't
know what happened in the last 6 months to a year, and as we
have seen from these FOIA documents, obviously the Park Service
was moving to control the assets. They were moving behind the
scenes. But the message publicly, even from the regional
director to the Trust was, ``You are not partners, you are
vendors.''
So, you are saying partnership on one side, but they are
getting a directly different message on the other. And that is
part of why we are at this head we are. I do wish that the
local director had had a chance to come out here, because I
think it would shine some light on the personality problems
that have taken place.
I guess we can shoot down every single one of those
premises you talked about, size, scale, and relationship to the
Park. Look, I grew up going to this Park as a kid. I went to
these Fourth of July picnics. I have taken part in these
events. This is my community's backyard. We are there and
growing because the fort started, because the Hudson Bay
started, because it all grew. So we can prove relationship of
churches or community events to this site. And when you talk
about archaeological challenges, there is an airfield, an
active airfield, planes come and go on these 7 acres.
So, to say that there is something there that is going to
be damaged if we transfer the ownership is really stretching
it. I mean I watch these planes come and go, and you would
think if there was a burial site under these 7 acres, those
planes wouldn't be allowed to come and go, because Ms. Hanabusa
is right, those laws are in place, regardless of whether you
own it or the City owns it.
And so, I guess I would ask, as we move forward, and having
talked with Director Jarvis, he said, ``We want the partnership
to work, we want the partnership to work.'' I think what has
failed has been at that local level. Decisions became
subjective, not based on standards. And I would ask that, as we
move forward, that unless you have real specifics that can't
be--specific objectives, not, as the Chairman alluded to,
platitudes, that the Park Service would strongly consider just
backing away on this one.
Dr. Frost. Well, I will just say that we would--I would
agree with you that we want the partnership with the City to
work, too. Absolutely. You think I enjoy coming here?
[Laughter.]
Dr. Frost. But we want the partnership to work. It is a
better situation on many different levels, as you well know, if
the partnership works. And I think you are right, the local
issues have sort of overtaken events. And hopefully we can
resolve them. I don't know if we can. I know we haven't to
date, but----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So can I speak to that?
Dr. Frost [continuing]. I would say that we would be
interested in trying to ``reinvigor'' those conversations to--
--
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So let me speak to that.
Dr. Frost. Yes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. When the Park Service closed or
essentially effectively closed the museum by their actions,
what, 30-plus days ago now, I got on the phone with Director
Jarvis. And he said, ``I am giving them 30 days to make this
work.''
And I said, ``Great. I am going to introduce a bill, just
in case.'' In those 30 days, from what I have been told, the
City and the Park Service--or the Trust--have not been reached
out to. In fact, the Park Service, rather than work with the
Trust, put up a covered wagon, an old boat, and raised the Park
Service flag over the museum and, in the same time, did not
reach out to the Trust.
So I am hearing a lot of partnership, partnership, but your
actions are speaking so much louder than your words.
Dr. Frost. And I can't speak to what has happened in the
past 30 days.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Well, with that, I guess I
yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Hanabusa, do you have any more questions?
Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. If I may yield to sponsor legislation,
is there a companion piece of your legislation that is moving
in the Senate?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. It is not, although we have been
working with our Senators' offices.
And, actually, I don't know if you would let me to yield to
Mr. Strahan, who has actually been working with both of our
Senators' offices on that, they are aware.
Mr. Strahan. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I don't think it is--I don't know that
it is drafted. Or I don't know that it is in----
Mr. Grijalva. Well, reclaiming my time, the point I am
making is probably more directed at Dr. Frost. Given the fact
that there is legislation here, and from the comments of the
Chairman, it is legislation that he is going to move. And the
absence of legislation in the Senate at this point, I think,
affords the Park Service an opportunity. And I would urge the
Park Service, so we don't begin to set some precedents here,
that if something can be done and done expeditiously, I think
it would be in everybody's best interest to do so. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Frost. I will relay that message.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have any other questions? Any other
questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. Then we thank you, and I appreciate your
response to Mr. Grijalva. The Park Service needs to prove that
they deserve those 7 acres.
Mr. Strahan, same thing as I did before. You are welcome to
stay, if you would like to. Don't know why in the hell you
would want to----
Mr. Strahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. But you are welcome to stay. If we
could ask----
Mr. Strahan [continuing]. Mr. Ranking Member, members of
the Committee, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. And once again, your
written testimony is in the record. We appreciate your
willingness to come here. Thank you, Representative.
I would ask Mr. Frost to stay, and call up Warren Judge,
who is the Chairman of the Dare County, North Carolina Board of
Commissioners, as well as Derb Carter, who is at the Chapel
Hill Office of the Southern Environmental Law Center, to join
us at the panel.
And I also invite Mr. Jones--who has had a chance to
testify already, right--to join us on the panel, if he would
like to. This is dealing with H.R. 819, another issue that
would have been nice to have been resolved at some other venue
than this one.
So, let me just go down the panel this time. Mr. Frost, I
gave you the last time last time. Why don't you go first this
time on this particular bill?
Dr. Frost. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me make
sure I have the right testimony here.
The Department strongly opposes H.R. 819. This legislation
would overturn the Offroad Vehicle Management Plan at Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, and restate the defunct interim
strategy. We believe that the final ORV management plan and the
special regulation that is now in effect will allow the
appropriate public use and access to the seashore to the
greatest extent possible. At the same time, it will also ensure
wildlife protection, provide a variety of visitor use
experiences, and minimize conflicts among various users, and
promote the safety of all visitors.
Under the ORB management plan, the great majority of the
beach is open to ORVs, visitation is rising, and tourist
revenues are at record levels. At the same time, beach-nesting
birds and sea turtles are finally showing much-needed
improvement.
This concludes my statement. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr.--it is Judge, correct?
Mr. Judge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Commissioner, you are recognized. Once again,
your written statement is part of the record. You have 5
minutes for an oral statement. Please go.
STATEMENT OF WARREN JUDGE, CHAIRMAN, DARE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Judge. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Congressman Jones, I come
before you on behalf of the 33,000 people who call Dare County
their home, and the millions who visit the Outer Banks of North
Carolina each year from every State of our great Nation.
Dare County is proud to be the centerpiece of the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. This special
place has the distinction of being America's first national
seashore, and was created for a different mission and purpose.
It is unique, in that it was planned and purposefully designed
to be a recreational area, a place where families could
experience the joy of interacting with nature in this special
way.
H.R. 819 represents a practical solution for providing
American taxpayers access to their national seashore, while at
the same time assuring science-based protection of shore birds
and sea turtles.
H.R. 819 would reinstate a National Park Service management
tool known as the ``interim plan.'' This was a fully vetted,
comprehensive plan that provided reasonable recreational
access, while at the same time safeguarded and managed
protected resources. It has a NEPA review, and was backed up by
a biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, finding that species of concern would not be
jeopardized.
This plan worked, and it gave the seashore superintendent
the authority to use his or her professional judgment to make
science-based, peer-reviewed adjustments in response to actual
conditions at the seashore on a real-time basis. Unfortunately,
after a small handful of special interest groups filed a
lawsuit, the management plan was set aside, and a rigid and
arbitrary consent decree was put into place. This consent
decree never had a NEPA review or the healthy input of
transparent, public participation through public hearings.
Since the consent decree, I have seen firsthand how the
people have suffered. Their county, like some of the places you
represent, is a rural area where small businesses are the
economic backbone of our community. Tourism is our primary
industry. It is the engine that drives our economy. Many have
experienced a dramatic drop in revenue that is directly related
to the heavy-handed beach access restrictions that have caused
a ripple effect, hurting businesses, employees, and families.
This negative impact is most vivid for those nearest the
closure areas.
Dare County has a unique geography. As part of a long, thin
stretch of barrier islands, it extends over 80 miles in length,
or about the distance from Washington, D.C. to Richmond,
Virginia. This helps you understand that even when tourism may
be up in some neighborhoods that are far removed from Hatteras
Island, it is still a fact that people near the closures are
struggling to hold on to the American Dream. For critics to
tell you that tourism on the Outer Banks has increased and
everything is hunky dory, is like telling someone in Richmond
that they should be happy that tourists are visiting the
Nation's Capital.
Another way the special interest groups try to razzle
dazzle the American public is by drawing conclusions about
resource management that are not based on scientific fact. You
will hear them say that a certain species has seen X percent
increase since the consent decree, and imply that it is reason
for success. However, even the seashore superintendent is on
record of saying that it is too early to draw the conclusion
that it was the consent decree that caused the increase.
History shows that successful resource management on the
vulnerable Barrier Islands of the Outer Banks is a long-range
process that is directly linked to two variables: first,
weather; second, natural predators. When storms are mild the
populations increase, and vice versa. That is why the
relatively recent consent decree cannot be credited as the
cause or the factor for bird and turtle increases with any
scientific integrity or certainty, and then etched in stone
with the new rule.
The few who oppose H.R. 819 call themselves special
interest groups, but they really are single interest groups. As
elected officials, we do not have the luxury of representing
just one single interest. Our calling is to do the greatest
good for the largest number of people. Today I appeal to you,
as an elected official, to do what is right for the diverse
group of people who love the Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreational Area. These include the families who cherish their
tradition of working hard all year to go on an affordable
vacation at our seashore. It includes many senior citizens and
those with physical disabilities who desperately need access to
the ocean our unique recreational area was designed to give.
That is why I am urging you to enact H.R. 819, to reinstate
a management plan that has worked. It is a good plan for
protecting shore birds and sea turtles, it is good for the
people. I respectfully ask you to help us preserve our culture,
our history, and our way of life. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Judge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Warren Judge, Chairman, Dare County Board of
Commissioners, County of Dare, North Carolina, on H.R. 819
The regulations at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational
Area are out of balance and unless remedied soon they will have
permanent consequences. The livelihood and future of our people depends
on the passage of H.R. 819. This bill would reinstate a proven and
well-vetted plan that balances resource protection with reasonable
recreational access consistent with the seashore's enabling
legislation.
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.
Dare County North Carolina, known as the Outer Banks, is home to the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area with most of the
seashore being within Dare County, and a portion in Ocracoke in
neighboring Hyde County.
The people of Dare County have cooperated with the National Park
Service (NPS) in developing America's seashore into a popular
attraction with cultural and historical significance. At the urging of
the NPS, 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 to address 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.
The passage of H.R. 819 would reinstate the ``Interim Management
Plan,'' a tool developed by the National Park Service that was in place
before the consent decree and proven effective in balancing resource
protection with responsible recreational access. The Interim Management
Plan was fully vetted and had a National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review.
A key provision of the Interim Plan is that it provides adaptive
management techniques that give the Superintendent authority to use his
or her best professional judgment in adapting corridors and routes as
the physical characteristics of the beach change on a dynamic basis.
This common sense approach allows the Superintendent to modify access
by responding directly to changing conditions on a real time basis,
rather than arbitrarily written mandates.
For example, when buffers are established to protect a resource,
once the species have begun moving away from the nesting area, the
Superintendent could monitor and modify the established buffer on an
on-going basis. This would ultimately provide more 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.
This flexibility is vital because conditions at the seashore are
dynamic and in a constant state of flux. 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 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. Depriving the Superintendent
of this flexibility denies reasonable access without affording any
resource protection benefit.
Reinstating the Interim Management Plan will not remove all
regulatory controls and create a reckless situation where the seashore
would be unprotected. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
Interim Plan has comprehensive rules that will allow the Superintendent
to actively manage the seashore and better protect wildlife.
The Interim Plan also had the benefit of citizen participation
through Public Hearings. As a matter of principle, we believe the
development of environmental policy is best done openly in the sunshine
of full and transparent public review. The consent decree, put in place
after a lawsuit by special interest groups, has never enjoyed public
support due in large part that it was prepared behind closed doors
without taxpayer input.
Dare County has championed the cause of providing access for all
users of the seashore. We strongly support pedestrian access and have
long encouraged the National Park Service to add additional parking,
walkovers and other infrastructure to enhance and improve the
pedestrian visitor experience.
We also recognize the physical reality that ORV use is the only
practical way to gain access to some of the key recreational sites
within this uniquely designed seashore. On first visit to the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, many are surprised to
discover that without ORV access, people of all ages would have to hike
large distances, of over a mile, to reach some of the remote
recreational areas. Only the most athletic can traverse the hot sand
carrying small children, recreational equipment, water and other vital
supplies.
Without ORV access, the physically disabled, the elderly, and the
many who suffer from chronic medical conditions are unable to reach the
seashore and enjoy the place that is supported by their tax dollars.
This is inconsistent with the recreational purpose for which the CHNSRA
was originally created. 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. It is
unfair that these people be restricted to the areas directly in front
of the villages as is now provided in the ORV Management Plan.
Highly restrictive beach closures have had a devastating impact on
the community surrounding the seashore. Tourism is our primary
industry. It is the engine that drives our economy. Family-owned
businesses are the backbone of Dare County and those who offer service
and hospitality to Outer Banks visitors are suffering because of
restrictive closures.
The negative impact has been the most vivid for those near the
closure areas. When special interest groups claim that tourism has
increased under the consent decree, they are guilty of not telling the
entire story. Dare County is a large geographical area and even when
tourism is up in a neighborhood that may be over an hour away from
Hatteras Island, it is still a fact that people near the closures are
struggling to survive.
Our people are being forced to work harder, deplete their savings,
and short-change their family's future. Meanwhile, by cherry-picking
economic indicators, the special interest groups rationalize that
tourism is up in spite of unprecedented closures. Sadly, 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. Our small business owners do not ask for special favors or
government handouts, just a fair opportunity to earn their part of the
American dream.
SCIENCE TO REGULATE THE SEASHORE MUST HAVE INTEGRITY
Dare County advocates the use of sound scientific decision making
in governing the seashore. Throughout the regulatory process, we have
worked closely with informed and dedicated groups such as CHAPA, OBPA,
NCBBA, and the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club. These knowledgeable,
grassroots organizations have been on the forefront of advancing
science-based protection to achieve recovery plan goals while assuring
reasonable access for people.
In addition to working in partnership with community groups, Dare
County has benefited from the support and council offered by concerned
individuals in the scientific community, including Dr. Mike Berry. His
views are highly respected and worthy of serious consideration. Dr.
Berry was a senior manager and scientist with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) serving as the Deputy Director of the National
Center for Environmental Assessment at Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. He also taught environmental science and policy at the
University of North Carolina and is currently a writer and science
advisor.
Dr. Berry has long been a dedicated champion in advocating that the
scientific process be the basis for determining public policy. He
explains, ``Best available science as touted by environmental groups is
opinion disguised as science.'' Following are nine (9) items identified
by Dr. Berry and Dare County as important scientific principles and
rationale to consider in evaluating the success of resource management
in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
(1) The Interim Management Plan fully titled Interim Protected
Species Management Strategy/Environmental Assessment was
publically discussed at great length and reviewed under the
NEPA provisions in 2006. It was signed into effect in July 2007
and published in the Federal Register.
As indicated at page 30 in the Finding of No Significant Impact
Interim Management Strategy (See Attached) ``There are no
significant adverse impacts on public health, public safety,
threatened or endangered species, sites or districts listed in
or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, or other unique characteristics of the region. In
addition, no highly uncertain or highly controversial impacts,
unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects, or
elements of precedence have been identified and implementing
the selected alternative (modified preferred alternative--
Alternative D (Access/Research Component Focus) with Elements
of Alternative A) will not violate any federal, state, or local
environmental protection law. There will be no impairment of
park resources or values resulting from implementation of the
selected alternative.''
The USFWS reviewed and concurred with the Interim Strategy and the
Finding of No Significant Impact. In the Biological Opinion submitted
to the NPS, August 14, 2006, USFWS states with regard to the Interim
Plan,
``After reviewing the current status of the breeding population of
the Atlantic Coast population of the piping plover, wintering
population of the Atlantic Coast population of the piping plover, the
wintering population of the Great Lakes population of the piping
plover, the wintering population of the Great Plains population of the
piping plover, seabeach amaranth, and loggerhead, green, leatherback,
hawksbill, and kemp's ridley sea turtles, the environmental baseline
for the action area, the effects of the proposed action and the
cumulative effects, it is the USFWS's biological opinion that
implementation of the Strategy, as proposed, is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species.'' (See
``Conclusion'' at page 75 of USFWS Opinion)
The NPS rational for the management provisions of Interim Plan is
indicated at page four in the Finding of No Significant Impact.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE (MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE--ALTERNATIVE D
(ACCESS/RESEARCH COMPONENT FOCUS) WITH ELEMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE
A
Based on the analysis presented in the strategy/EA, the NPS
identified Alternative D--Access/Research Component Focus as the
preferred alternative for implementation. The preferred alternative is
described on pages 59-63 and in tables 1, 2, and 3 of the strategy/EA.
However, after considering public comment on the strategy/EA; park
field experience during the 2006 breeding season; the USFWS Amended
Biological Opinion (2007) (attachment 1 to this FONSI); new research
(``Effects of human recreation on the incubation behavior of American
Oystercatchers'' by McGowan C.P. and T.R. Simons, Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 118(4): 485-293, 2006); and professional judgment, NPS has
decided to implement a combination of Alternative D--Access/Research
Component Focus and some elements of Alternative A--Continuation of
2004 Management that pertain to managing sensitive species that are not
listed under the ESA (see tables 1, 2, and 3 of this document). The
basic rationale for this choice is that alternative D, as modified by
elements of alternative A, best provides for both protection of
federally and non-federally listed species and for continued
recreational use and access consistent with required management of
protected species during the interim period, until a long-term ORV
management plan/EIS/regulation is developed, approved, and implemented.
The modified preferred alternative--Alternative D (Access/Research
Component Focus) with Elements of Alternative A is incorporated into
the strategy/EA by Errata (attachment 2 to this FONSI). All elements of
the modified preferred alternative were fully assessed in the strategy/
EA under alternative A or alternative D.''
As indicated in the Finding of No Significant Impact, the selected
alternative proved for both public access to the seashore and resource
protection based on professional judgment of NPS managers, and
consistent with management suggestions of USGS.
The Interim Plan established ``best professional judgment'' closure
areas that did not previously exist. (See Pages 34-40 Finding of No
Significant Impact.)
(2) Prior to the implementation of the Interim Plan, there was
concern voiced mainly by environmental activist organizations that
species decline was occurring on the national seashore as the result of
increased public access, mainly off road vehicles. For 5 consecutive
years (2001-2006), published resource numbers were low compared to
previous years and were often touted to indicate that species
populations, particularly birds, were in decline due to anthropogenic
causes. However, it is often not mentioned that during this same time
period the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
experienced back-to-back storms that produced a significant distorting
and transforming effect on the seashore ecosystem.
Due to the fact that the National Park Service, resource managers,
and researchers had limited habitat specific research and monitoring
data, the actual numbers of species, species behavior, and size of
species populations at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational
Area were unknown and often simply speculated in the form of
``professional judgment''. It is important to recognize that
``judgments'' and ``opinions'' in the absence of data are not science.
USGS, the research arm of the Department of Interior, in the
introduction to the document titled Synthesis of Management,
Monitoring, and Protection Protocols for Threatened for Endangered
Species and Species of Special Concern at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, North Carolina made the following observation giving credence
to the fact that the low bird counts published for a few years prior to
2007 were most likely not indicative of the actual condition of
species.
``Over the past decade, management of these natural resources has
been inconsistent at CAHA, partially due to the lack of effective and
consistent monitoring of the location, reproductive activity, mortality
factors, and winter habitat use of these species.''
Recognizing the lack of effective and consistent monitoring that
existed prior to 2007, the Interim Plan established an enhanced and
intensive resources monitoring program for birds and turtles that had
not previously existed. Starting in 2007, NPS began seeking out,
observing, and reporting birds at more heightened level than ever
before. Since instituting the enhanced monitoring program in 2007, bird
numbers have increased. (See Pages 34-40 in Finding of No Significant
Impact.)
(3) In April 2008, environmental activists organizations sued to
overturn the Interim Plan, claiming that the plan was not based on
sound science and closure boundary distances prescribe by USGS. The
Southern Environmental Law Center, the Audubon Society, and Defenders
of Wildlife, sued the National Park Service and convinced a federal
judge without any oral argument or expert testimony to issue a consent
decree to convert the most popular and frequented sections of the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area into mile after mile of
``Bird Use Area'' for a large part of the visitor season.
The public was given no opportunity to review or comment on the
poorly crafted environmental management provisions of the consent
decree. The provisions were slapped together in a period of about 3
weeks in April of 2008, behind closed doors, with no independent
technical input and discussion.
Closure boundaries for four bird species (Piping Plover, Least
Tern, Colonial Water Birds, American Oystercatcher), none of which are
endangered, have prevented thousands of hard working, tax paying
citizens and visitors from around the world from entering into large
areas of the seashore. Thousands of visitors are channeled into now
much overcrowded sections of the seashore, threatening to overrun the
carrying capacity of those ecosystems.
The consequence of this non-public involved environmental decision
is disastrous. As indicated in testimony this has had a devastating
effect on the economy of Hatteras Island.
The access denying provisions of the consent decree provisions,
which are unnecessarily restrictive and not based on objective science
assessment, have been incorporated with additions into the final ORV
management plan that the proposed legislation S. 2372 is designed to
overturn.
(4) Environmental activists often referred to National Park Service
annual resource reports in their self-promoting press releases, public
testimony, and periodic presentations to the federal judge overseeing
the consent decree. They use the reports to make claims that the public
access restrictive resource closures of the consent decree, which they
crafted and imposed without public review, are resulting in ``highest
ever'' bird and turtle observations. The annual resource reports have
never been independently reviewed or verified for accuracy.
The National Park Service and the environmental activists groups
are comparing numbers in these recent annual resource reports to
questionable low bird count numbers published prior to 2007 that were
not observed using the current level of intense and enhanced monitoring
and measurement that has been in place since 2007. Such an ``apples and
oranges'' comparison is in no way valid or useful in indicating
statistical change.
In the absence of an enhanced monitoring program prior to 2007, it
is plausible that various bird counts were not as depleted and low as
claimed by environmental activists but that they were simply not being
observed, counted, and reported as at the current intense monitoring
level. It is also plausible that any noted increase in bird counts
since 2007 are due to a new enhanced program for seeking out,
observing, and reporting birds rather than the creation of public
access restrictive closures.
At no time in the past 4 years has any federal official
demonstrated through independent audit or review, the validity of these
reports or taken a hard look at environmental activists claims. None of
the annual reports related to the consent decree for 2008, 2009, 2010,
and 2011 were ever peer reviewed or validated by competent independent
science advisors in open public forum or openly discussed by interested
parties.
The bird and turtle numbers that environmental activists lawyers
refer to come from annual National Park Service reports that are not
consistent with the Presidential Directive for Science Integrity, and
Department of Interior and National Park Service policies for
scientific transparency and review. The reports do not indicate an
author or a federal scientist who takes responsibility for the validity
of the data. The public does not know who--by name, affiliation, and
technical qualifications--made the observations and recorded the data.
The public has no knowledge of chain of custody or quality assurance of
the data. The public does not know who specifically wrote the reports.
The public cannot get at the facts and verify claims.
Resource documents indicate that previously in 2007, annual bird
reports commissioned by the National Park Service were co-authored by
Audubon Society members.
(5) There is no statistically significant environmental benefit
indicated because of the restrictive access provisions of the Consent
Decree or the Final ORV Plan.
Nowhere in any annual resource report of the past 4 years does
National Park Service demonstrate or claim a cause and effect
relationship between overly restrictive closures provided by the
consent decree and bird and turtle production.
Environmental activists and the National Park Service cannot
demonstrate or prove that wildlife production of birds and turtles was
improved under the overly restrictive provisions of the consent decree
any more than would have occurred had the provisions of the publically
reviewed Interim ORV Plan been allowed to move forward for 4 years.
In recent court testimony, without qualification, the Seashore
Superintendent said about birds and turtles, ``the trend is up''. The
statement is something the judge that issued a consent decree that has
denied extensive public access to the national seashore wants to hear
even though at each of the Status Conferences before the judge, the
Seashore Superintendent has explained to the Court that it is in fact
too early to ascribe a cause/effect relationship.
For turtles, production and sightings during the years of the
consent decree are up all along the Atlantic Coast, not just the region
governed by the consent decree. For birds, natural processes and
variability alone can produce such a statistically insignificant 1 or 2
year ``uptrend'' for a very small number of birds in previous years.
(6) Data collected and published by NPS in recent years in no way
supports the claim by environmentalists that ORVs reduce the
productivity of birds. In fact, the data suggests that the Interim
Management Plan, prepared with public input and review in 2005 and
published in the federal register, was showing every sign of being
effective at protecting birds and natural resources.
The Interim Management Plan was set aside by the court and replaced
by the consent decree that mandated extensive closures. The closures of
recent years have been of exorbitantly high cost to the public, but
have not contributed to an improvement in species production or safety.
The consent decree has produced no natural resource benefit over and
above the Interim Plan. In fact, in the same year the consent was
issued, the fledge counts were higher under the Interim Plan than under
the consent decree. In a matter of weeks after the issuance of the
consent decree, the NPS in Washington and environmental activists in
Senate testimony disingenuously credited the restrictions of consent
decree, which had hardly been implemented, for improved bird counts
that were most probably the consequence of the Interim Plan and
enhanced monitoring implementation.
(7) From a scientific viewpoint, ``best professional judgment''
closures are more effective and technically sound than closures imposed
by the Consent Decree and Final ORV Regulation. Smaller closures limit
the free movement of predators. They do not promote the food chain
manipulation and transformation in the ecosystem to the same extent as
the larger consent decree closures. The huge closure distances in the
consent decree and final plan restrictions keep pedestrians and ORVs
off the seashore while birds are nesting. At the same time, the
extensive closures also provide for the proliferation and increased
free movement of predators. In effect, the extensive closures create an
ecological trap for birds in that large closure areas enhance
predation.
Data at page 10 of 2011 American Oystercatchers Report indicates
that in 2008 under the Interim Plan, 22 percent of chicks were lost to
predation. Under the consent decree boundary restrictions 58 percent
were lost in 2009; 35 percent lost in 2010; and 42 percent lost in
2011. Since the extraordinarily large consent decree boundaries have
come into play, the predation tend is ``up''.
Food chain manipulation is one way to promote unnatural bird
production. The technical provisions of the consent decree have been
the basis for the selective trapping and killing of bird predators.
Aggressive predator control during the years of the consent decree is
altering the ecosystem significantly for the sole benefit of selected
bird species.
(8) Over the past 40 years, federal agencies have adopted formal
peer review policies to ensure they comply with the ``Hard Look
Doctrine''. Federal Courts expect agencies to take a ``Hard Look'' at
the science and not be informal or sloppy in their treatment of fact.
The National Park Service has failed to ensure a valid science basis to
a regulation that restricts public access to the national seashore. An
independent review to determine the validity of the so-called
``scientific fact'' never occurred during the consent decree
proceedings of the past 4 years. As a result, the public lost access to
the beaches of its national seashore. Such government inaction in
responding to and collaborating with politically powerful special
interests will only further public outrage and distrust of government.
Many of the references used to justify the final ORV management
plan are those of individuals and activists organizations who have
supported litigation that denies public access. The major science
references are authored by environmental activist organizations and
individuals trying to shut down ORV access to the national seashore:
Audubon, Blue Water, Hatteras Island Bird Club, etc. Many of the
references are outdated, biased, contain incomplete and misleading
information, and few have ever been reviewed in open forum. The main
science references are unsuitable and inappropriate as the basis for a
government regulation that restricts public access to the national
seashore and have significant negative impacts on the Outer Banks
economy.
The so-called ``USGS Protocols'' continue to be touted as ``best
available science'' in the development of the final ORV management plan
for the Cape Hatteras Seashore Recreational Area. The USGS Protocols
were cited as being ``in press'' 5 years after they first appeared on
the Park Service website. There was no date on the document, no
responsible federal official identified, no government document number.
The final publication was not accessible, publically reviewed, or fully
explained by government authority at the time the DEIS was submitted to
the public for comment.
In an introduction to the final release of the Protocols in March
2010, USGS states ``Although no new original research or experimental
work was conducted, this synthesis of the existing information was peer
reviewed by over 15 experts with familiarity with these species. This
report does not establish NPS management protocols but does highlight
scientific information on the biology of these species to be considered
by NPS managers who make resource management decisions at CAHA.''
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1262/).
As indicated by USGS, the ``Protocols'' are really not hard and
fast science based protocols but suggested considerations rendered by
an ad hoc group. Such ad hoc suggestions can in no way be characterized
as ``best available science''.
The literature reviews found in the ``USGS Protocols'' as published
in final are significantly out of date. Many citations are over 20
years old and most are not related to the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreational Area. The public does not have access to the
literature reviewed in this essential report and most of the citations
are so insignificant they cannot even be found in major university
libraries that have extensive environmental and natural resource
publications such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The following speaks volumes as to the lack of formality and
serious purpose of the ``USGS Protocols'' currently used as the excuse
for beach closures.
There is no public record that the protocols, which have
been the source of closures, have been officially peer reviewed
following USGS peer review policy. http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/
502-93.html
There is no public file, docket, or documentation of peer
review questions, comments, or author response.
There is no indication that the protocols were ever
published in a peer reviewed journal or publication or ever referred to
as what they are, management guidelines and opinions as opposed to in-
depth science assessment.
Scientists having any kind of conflict of interest
association, whether through membership, collegial associations,
funding, or grants must disclose the relationship. Some authors and
reviewers of the protocols were members and associates of organizations
now using the protocols to restrict public access to the beaches of the
national park, a fact never disclosed openly and not in compliance with
USGS peer review policy.
As has been stated many times in public comment to the National
Park Service, the best course of action to resolve the matter of valid
science is to turn the science review and update over to the National
Academy of Sciences or some other neutral party, to objectively,
critically, and comprehensively review all relevant science, disclose
the facts and restore some public trust in the scientific process used
as the basis for environmental management decisions at Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area.
Most importantly, for the restrictive provisions of the final ORV
management plan, there is no indication that NPS ever plans to revisit
the USGS Protocols and the science basis for closure boundaries.
The NPS fails to take hard look at the science that might
contradict its current justification for denial of public access to the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
(9) Nowhere is a specific science basis, study or data, ever
presented, or published for a given bird management option, established
solely for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
Closure boundaries are overly restrictive at CHNSRA and are not
used at other NPS properties. There has been no administrative or
science based explanation given to the public for these uniquely
restrictive closures
CONCLUSION
The testimony outlined above carefully documents that there is not
a cause effect relationship to the restrictive provisions of the
consent decree. The special interest groups who want to severely limit
recreational access rely on flawed science that lacks integrity, peer
review, and without regard to the full consideration of the law, the
economy, and public use. Now, more than ever, the people need federal
agencies, such as the Park Service, to be held accountable for policies
that have hurt the people.
Dare County supports H.R. 819 as sound legislation that will
benefit the residents and visitors of the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreational Area. We believe the Interim Management Plan,
which would be reinstituted upon passage of H.R. 819, best balances
resource protection with recreational access. It 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. 819.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Warren Judge
Question. In your Disclosure Form submitted to the Committee, you
provided the response ``None that I am aware of'' to a question
regarding lawsuits and petitions filed by you against the Federal
Government in the current year and the previous 4 years. You provided
the same answer, ``None that I am aware of'', to a second questions
regarding lawsuits and petitions filed by the organization you
represent.
According to the docket of the U.S. District Court of the District
of Columbia, Dare County is plaintiff to ongoing civil litigation
involving critical habitat designation. The Defendants in the case are
the United States Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Case number is 1:09-CV-00236-RCL.
Please explain why the information you are required to disclose
pursuant to the letter of invitation sent to you by the Chairman is
incorrect.
Answer. Our participation in the critical habitat designation
matter began in around May of 2008. We provided comments and
participated with the other named Plaintiffs in an effort to prevent
the designation of large coastal areas as critical habitat and thereby
allow further regulation that might prevent beach access. While I was
aware that suit was filed and that Dare County was Plaintiff in that
suit, I was not aware that it was filed in 2009, my belief was that it
was filed in 2008 around the time we became involved and outside the 4
year period you inquired about. I apologize for my error and certainly
did not intend to mislead the committee in any way.
Question. What concrete, measurable, publicly verifiable data do
you have to substantiate your statement that the Park Service's
management of off-road vehicles is causing any harm at all to the
Hatteras Island economy?
Answer. As outlined in my oral testimony on H.R. 819 before the
Subcommittee, the management of off-road vehicles in the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area has caused economic harm. This is
most evident for small, family owned businesses near the closure areas.
In a series of notarized affidavits, Dare County has documented the
adverse economic impact on a variety of businesses encompassing a wide
range of the business community including--automotive parts and repair,
bait and tackle shops, campgrounds, charitable service providers, child
care centers, fishing rod builders, marinas, motels, professional
artists, restaurants, and retail establishments.
Many of these businesses have had to lay-off valued employees,
suffer cutbacks, and deplete their savings. Even those whose revenue
stayed level or showed a modest increase have had to cut back employee
hours notably for students and forego much-needed capital improvements.
Following are three examples -
Frank Folb, owner of Frank & Fran's, The Fisherman's Best Friend,
has seen a dramatic revenue decline in a business that has historically
prospered during every economic downturn in the past 22 years. He has
been forced to eliminate employee hours which has caused a financial
hardship for each of their families.
Anne Bowers, owner and operator of Indian Town Gallery, has
documented progressive business declines caused by beach closures that
have caused a do-or-die struggle to survive.
Steve Hissey, the Co-Manager of Teach's Lair Marine suffered a loss
of $300 to $600 for every day that access was restricted to the
seashore. This resulted in the lay-off of two people solely related to
the closures.
These are but a few of the real voices on the front lines of the
beach access struggle. As explained during my oral testimony, Dare
County has a unique geography. It is part of a long, thin stretch of
barrier islands extending over 80 miles in length. In such a vast
geographical region, even when tourism may be up one in one sector far
removed from the beach closures, it does not reflect or mitigate the
harm that those nearest the closures are experiencing.
Those that would oppose this bill point to increases in gross
occupancy tax numbers from Dare County or from Hatteras Island to argue
that the Final Rules have had no impact on the economy. From a macro
standpoint looking at the whole county, occupancy tax numbers are up.
However if you look at the individual villages on Hatteras Island
during the time of the most closures under the final rules, the numbers
tell a different story.
Changes in Gross Occupancy Sales by village from FY 10-11 versus
FY11-12 (the first year of the final rules and which covers the spring
and early summer when closures have the most impact) were as follows:
Buxton -$828,719
Frisco -$7,161
Rodanthe -$496,861
Salvo -$694,489
-----------------
Total -$2,027,230
Avon + $419,062
Waves + 76,119
Hat. Village + 7,761
-----------------
+ $502,942
Total Occupancy Sales Lost on Hatteras Island in FY 10- $1,524,288
11 through FY11-12
The Villages showing declines and Waves are most dependent on ORV
access. One would expect them to be the hardest hit and occupancy sales
except for Waves reflect that. In fact Buxton was at less than FY 05/06
levels during that period. Avon is a bedroom community with multiple
oceanfront dwellings and few restrictions on access. One would expect
little impact from the rules in Avon and in fact Avon's sales
increased. All six other towns in the county also had increased
occupancy sales during this period. What's different about those towns,
they have no restrictions on access to the beach and are not affected
by the final rules.
As an elected official, it is my duty and obligation to be a voice
for those in my community who are suffering because of the harsh
closures. The people have documented their loss not only by affidavit,
but also by an outpouring of hundreds of comments that are recorded in
the official record of Public Hearings conducted by the National Park
Service
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Carter.
STATEMENT OF DERB S. CARTER, JR., DIRECTOR, CHAPEL HILL OFFICE,
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Mr. Carter. Chairman Bishop, members of the Subcommittee,
Congressman Jones, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
the proposed legislation to overturn the Offroad Vehicle
Management Plan for Cape Hatteras National Seashore. I will
summarize the key points in my written testimony.
Before I begin I want to say that I spent some time a
couple of weeks ago at the Walter Jones Center for the Sounds
in Columbia, North Carolina. Those of us from Eastern North
Carolina appreciate all that Congressman Jones and his father,
former Congressman Jones, Senior, have done for our region.
However, this is one bill on which we disagree.
We support the balanced Offroad Vehicle Management Plan
adopted by the National Park Service in February of last year
to manage vehicle use on the beaches of Cape Hatteras National
Seashore. The plan was nearly 40 years overdue, mandated by
Executive Orders from President Nixon and President Carter.
This plan went through 4 years of public review and comment,
including a negotiated rulemaking with all stakeholders
involved, and detailed environmental and economic analysis.
Over 20,000 comments were submitted by the public on this
proposed plan, the vast majority supporting the plan, or even
more stringent offroad vehicle restrictions.
We oppose H.R. 819, which would repeal that plan and
reinstate policies that were resulting in significant harm to
the wildlife and natural resources of this national seashore.
The Park Service plan is a balanced plan that provides
minimum protections for the seashore's natural resources. It
accommodates visitors with different interests, and gives
wildlife a chance. I am one of the 4 to 5 percent of the
visitors to the seashore who drive on the beaches. I have
regularly driven on the beaches of this seashore for over 35
years. And I have seen the many changes: more and more
vehicles, less and less wildlife, fewer vehicle-free areas for
the 95 to 96 percent of the visitors who do not drive on the
beaches, but come to this national seashore.
The actual area of the seashore beach open to vehicles and
pedestrians, pedestrians only, and temporarily closed for
wildlife is depicted on this graphic, which simulates last
year. The plan designates 41 miles of the seashore, 67 miles of
beaches for year-round or seasonal ORV use. Since the plan was
implemented beginning in February, the Park Service has issued
over 9,000 annual permits for ORV use, and 23,000 weekly
permits for ORV use. Twenty-six miles of beaches are designated
as vehicle-free areas for pedestrians and families to enjoy who
do not want to drive on the beach.
Sea turtles are protected by restricting driving at night
during the turtle nesting season, and breeding birds in
sensitive areas are protected by buffers that are temporary and
established if and only if birds are attempting to breed in an
area.
By all objective measures, the Park Service's plan has been
a success. Visitation to the seashore has remained steady or
increased over the past several years under the court-ordered
ORV restrictions that began in 2008. In 2012, last year, the
first year under this ORV plan, the seashore had over 2.3
million visitors, the highest number of visitors since 2003.
Dare County reports record occupancy numbers for hotels and
rental houses. Occupancy tax receipts for Dare County from
rental homes, hotels, and campgrounds have exceeded receipts
ever since the consent decree and the plan were put in place,
compared to the year 2007. Occupancy revenue from Hatteras
Island, the area with the most area of seashore, was 7 percent
higher in 2012 under this plan than it was in 2007, the plan
that this bill would revert to.
Since the court-imposed wildlife protection restrictions in
2008, the number of colonial waterbird nests on the seashore
have quadrupled, and the number of sea turtle nests have
tripled, to a record 222 nests last year.
In conclusion, the Park Service has developed a balanced
management plan for all users of the seashore. Visitation to
the seashore is up. Tourism in the surrounding communities is
thriving. And wildlife is recovering. We respectfully request
that the Subcommittee allow this management plan to work, to
continue to work, and not favorably report H.R. 819. Thank you
very much for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Derb S. Carter, Jr., Director of the North
Carolina Offices of the Southern Environmental Law Center, on Behalf of
Audubon North Carolina and Southern Environmental Law Center, on H.R.
819
This testimony is submitted on behalf of Audubon North Carolina and
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). In addition, SELC has
represented Defenders of Wildlife in litigation prompting the
rulemaking process, in the rulemaking process itself, and in
intervening in litigation on the side of the National Park Service to
defend the Final Rule that would be abolished by H.R. 819. SELC also
represents National Parks Conservation Association in defending the
Final Rule.
We strongly oppose H.R. 819. We support of the National Park
Service's Final Rule to manage off-road vehicle use on Cape Hatteras
National Seashore in North Carolina. The bill would abolish the Final
Rule which was adopted by the National Park Service after extensive
public review and comment. The bill would eliminate sensible safeguards
to preserve Cape Hatteras National Seashore for current visitors and
future generations to explore and enjoy. In the one year of management
under the Final Rule, visitation to the Seashore increased, tourism set
record highs, and wildlife on the Seashore continued to rebound.
Passage of H.R. 819 would ignore and undermine:
Extensive public involvement in adoption of the Final Rule:
The public process informing the National Park Service's management
plan included numerous public meetings, a negotiated rulemaking process
that included opportunity for public comment at each meeting, and two
public comments periods, during which 21,258 written comments were
received on the draft Final Rule and its supporting environmental
impact statement. The vast majority of commenters wrote in favor of
stronger wildlife protections and more stringent off-road vehicle (ORV)
restrictions than even those contained in the Final Rule. The National
Park Service weighed all the comments and public input and struck a
careful and fair balance among competing uses of the Seashore, which is
embodied in the Final Rule. The Final Rule should be given a chance to
succeed.
Detailed economic and environmental review:
The Park Service's extensive review culminated in lengthy economic
reports and cost-benefit analyses, an environmental impact statement
that examined six alternatives to the Final Rule, and a detailed
biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, all of
which supported the Final Rule as it was written. The management
measures in the Final Rule are based on a robust scientific record
supported by leading experts.
Balanced access for pedestrians and ORV users provided by the Final
Rule:
The Final Rule provides a balanced approach to Seashore visitation,
designating 41 miles (28 year-round and 13 seasonal) as ORV routes of
the Seashore's 67 miles of beaches. Only 26 miles of beaches are
designated as year-round vehicle-free areas for pedestrians, families,
and wildlife, to promote pedestrian access and reduce user conflicts
between motorized and non-motorized visitors. While limiting off-road
vehicular traffic in these areas, the new plan will also provide new
parking facilities and access ramps to facilitate visitor access to
beaches.
The Final Rule and management plan only closes beaches when
necessary to protect nesting waterbirds and sea turtles from
disturbance. Today, one hundred percent of the Seashore beaches are
open to pedestrians and 61 percent of the beaches are open to ORV and
pedestrian use. The remaining 39 percent of the beaches are reserved
for pedestrian use only. During the breeding season for waterbirds
(late April through July) only those areas where birds are attempting
to nest are closed when prescribed disturbance buffers require closure.
Once nesting is completed, these areas are opened.
Most other national seashores either have regulations in place to
manage and restrict ORV use or do not allow ORV use at all; only one
national seashore continues to allow beach driving without a regulation
in place. Four national seashores have long prohibited ORVs entirely,
while four others have regulations restricting ORV use. All of those,
except Padre Island, allow driving on a much smaller percentage of
their beaches than does the Cape Hatteras Final Rule. Thus, the number
of miles Cape Hatteras's beach set aside for ORV use in the Final Rule
is significantly more extensive than most other national seashores.
The overwhelming weight of scientific authority:
In contrast to the utter dearth of science to support H.R. 819, an
extraordinary amount of scientific evidence shows that the Final Rule's
beach driving restrictions are warranted and are the minimum necessary
to preserve the natural resources of the Seashore for future
generations. The rulemaking record includes hundreds of peer-reviewed
articles, the peer-reviewed protocols developed by the government's own
scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, and the support of scientists
at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission. Arguments for ORV use on the entire Seashore are
not only contradicted by substantial scientific studies at the Seashore
and other locations, they are not supported by any scientific evidence
in the record.
Five years of thriving tourism:
In the 4 years under reasonable wildlife protections and ORV
restrictions similar to those implemented in the Final Rule \1\ and one
year under the Final Rule, tourism has thrived, park visitation has
held steady and increased in some years, and tourism revenues grew.
Notably, in the last two years, new records have been set for visitor
occupancy and tourism revenue in Dare County, North Carolina, where
much of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore land is located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These wildlife protections were established in a consent decree
was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina in the federal lawsuit entitled Defenders of Wildlife et
al. v. National Park Service et al. (E.D.N.C. case no. 2:07-CV-45). It
imposed protections and beach driving restrictions beginning in 2008
that are very similar to those in the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of 2011, when Hurricane Irene cut off access to
Hatteras Island for nearly 2 months, visitation to Cape Hatteras
National Seashore has remained steady or increased for the past 9
years, from a low of 2,125,005 (in 2006) and a high of 2,302,040 in
2012. In the first year of management under the Final Rule, Seashore
visitation was the highest since 2003.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Cape Hatteras National Seashore visitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2,302,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 1,960,711 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2,193,292
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2,282,543
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2,146,392
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2,237,378
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2,125,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2,260,628
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hurricane Irene cut access for nearly 2 months.
(See ``Annual Park Visitation'' Report for CAHA at http://
www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm)
Dare County, NC, where the majority of the Seashore is located,
reports that visitor occupancy tax receipts for each year under the
court ordered ORV restrictions (2008 to 2012) exceeded receipts in 2007
and prior years, with 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 setting successive
records for all-time high receipts. Tourism revenue for Hyde County, NC
(the Ocracoke Island portion of Cape Hatteras National Seashore) has
held steady or increased since 2005, to a record high $31.69 million in
2011. The chart below shows tourism revenue data for Hyde and Dare
Counties, both before the court ordered ORV restrictions went into
effect in 2008 and afterwards:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dare County tourism Hyde County tourism
Year expenditures (millions Dare County percent expenditures (millions Hyde County percent
of dollars) change from prior year of dollars) change from prior year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 $877.18 + 5.14 $31.69 + 2.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 $834.29 + 8.8% $30.90 + 11.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 $766.56 (-1.4%) $27.70 (-1.5%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 $777.41 + 1.9% $28.11 + 3.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 $762.65 + 8.6% $27.29 (-4.1%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 $702.25 + 8.7% $28.46 + 3.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 $646.08 + 4.8% $27.49 + 7.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See North Carolina Department of Commerce reports on tourism revenue
at: www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/)
The majority of the national seashore is on Hatteras Island in Dare
County. Dare County reports that occupancy revenue from hotels, rental
homes, campgrounds, etc. on Hatteras Island was 7 percent higher in
2012 (the first year under the Final Rule) than in 2007 (the year that
the Interim Management Strategy, to which HR 819 would return the
Seashore, was in effect). This was true despite the fact that access to
Hatteras Island was cut off after Hurricane Sandy for nearly 2 months
in late 2012. Occupancy receipts have been steadily rising in recent
years under reasonable wildlife protections and ORV restrictions
similar to those implemented in the Final Rule. The Dare County
Visitor's Bureau reports that Hatteras Island visitors spent a record-
setting $27.8 million on lodging during the month of July 2010
(surpassing July 2009 by 18.5 percent). July 2011 occupancy receipts on
Hatteras Island then set a new high of $29.6 million. Then July 2012
set yet another new all-time occupancy high on Hatteras Island at
$30,577,703. July has the maximum restriction on ORV use due to
seasonal safety ORV closures in front of villages, breeding bird
closures, and night driving restrictions for nesting sea turtles. The
occupancy receipts for June and September 2012, the first year under
the Final Rule, also exceeded the levels for the prior years posted on
Dare County's Visitor's Bureau website, and may also represent all-time
records. (See http://www.outerbanks.org/outerbanks-statistics/ (graphs
for ``Occupancy by District'')).
Although only 4-5 percent of Seashore visitors have an interest in
driving on the beaches, these visitors have this opportunity at all
times under the Final Rule. Since the Final Rule went into effect on
February 15, 2012 (through March 4, 2013), the National Park Service
has issued 32,893 permits to operate an ORV on Seashore beaches (9,086
annual and 23,807 weekly permits). Permits require an applicant to view
a short educational video on safe driving on the beaches. In the first
year under the permit system instituted by the Final Rule, speeding
violations on the beaches decreased by 88 percent from 200 in the prior
year to 23.
Recovery of protected species under reasonable ORV restrictions:
The various federally endangered, federally threatened, and state-
protected species of shorebirds, water birds, and sea turtles that live
and/or breed on Cape Hatteras National Seashore beaches have rebounded
in the 5 years under court ordered ORV restrictions and the Final Rule.
These species are sensitive to human disturbance during the nesting
season. All species had declined--and some had even disappeared from
the Seashore--under the prior plan that H.R. 819 seeks to reinstate.
Under the court ordered ORV restrictions and Final Rule, records have
been set for the number of sea turtle nests, piping plover breeding
pairs, piping plover fledge chicks, American oystercatcher fledged
chicks, least tern nests, and gull-billed tern nests.
Sea turtle nests on Seashore beaches have nearly tripled from 82 in
2007 to a record 222 in 2012. The number of breeding pairs of
threatened piping plovers increased from 6 pairs in 2007 to 15 in 2012.
The number of nests of beach nesting colonial waterbirds including
terns and black skimmers has quadrupled, from 314 nests in 2007 to 1314
nests in 2012. By all measures, the ORV use restrictions during the
nesting season from May to July have been an unqualified success in
restoring wildlife to the Seashore.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea turtle nests 82 112 104 153 147 222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping plover pairs 6 11 9 12 15 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping plover fledged chicks 4 7 6 15 10 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American oystercatcher pairs 21 21 21 20 20 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American oystercatcher fledged chicks 10 15 10 26 24 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial waterbird nests 314 255 691 414 1,289 1,314
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See National Park Service, Cape Hatteras National Seashore Annual
Reports 2012)
The requirements of numerous federal laws:
Executive Order 11644 and 36 CFR Sec. 4.10 require all public land
managers to adopt special regulations to authorize ORV use and requires
that those plans not harm wildlife or degrade wildlife habitat.
The Park Service Organic Act declares that national parks and
seashores must be managed ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historical objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 1. If a conflict exists between recreational uses and natural
resource protection, natural resource protection predominates.
The enabling legislation for Cape Hatteras National Seashore
declares that it shall be ``permanently preserved as a primitive
wilderness'' and that ``no development of the project or plan for the
convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible
[] with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna of the
physiographic conditions now prevailing in the area.'' 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 459a-2.
The Endangered Species Act requires that all federal agencies
provide for the recovery of endangered species. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 7(a)(1).
H.R. 4094, in contrast, prescribes that any management plan for the
Seashore only provide minimum protection to endangered species, but not
recovery.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for federal actions that
significantly affect the environment. The Final Rule is supported by an
EIS, but the Interim Strategy mandated by H.R. 4094 is not.
Conclusion
In marked contrast to the National Park Service's Final Rule, H.R.
819 would return Cape Hatteras National Seashore to the failed
protocols of the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy that
were proven to be devastating to birds, sea turtles, other natural
resources, and the public's enjoyment of the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore beaches prior to the introduction of the consent decree. Even
the Interim Strategy itself states that it was not developed as a long-
term solution for managing ORV use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
but rather expressly and repeatedly states that it was intended only to
be implemented temporarily until the Final Rule was in place. The
Biological Opinion for the Interim Strategy reiterates that it will
negatively impact the natural resources of the Seashore in the long-
term.
In contrast to the Final Rule, the Interim Strategy that H.R.
819 seeks to reinstate:
1. Was not supported by the same degree of public participation and
contradicts the wishes of the vast majority of people who
commented on the Final Rule;
2. Is not supported by any data or evidence that it will have a
greater positive impact (or avoid a negative impact) on
tourism than the Final Rule;
3. Is not supported by an environmental impact statement or
extensive economic studies, as the Final Rule is;
4. Will reserve an extraordinary percentage of the miles of
Seashore beaches for a small minority of park users, to the
exclusion of the majority of park users who prefer to enjoy
the Seashore without the danger, visual blight, noise, and
odor of trucks monopolizing the beach;
5. Is not supported by the great weight of scientific literature,
as the Final Rule is;
6. Was responsible, in part, for the decline in population of the
many protected species at the Seashore by 2007; and
7. Will violate and undermine the requirements of the federal laws
listed above.
In sum, the National Park Service's Final Rule is a balanced plan
to manage ORV use on Cape Hatteras National Seashore while providing
areas for wildlife, and the vast majority of visitors who come to walk
and not drive on the Seashore's beaches.
Please oppose H.R. 819, and instead support the National Park
Service's balanced and common sense management plan for Cape Hatteras
National Seashore.
______
Mr. Bishop. We thank both of you for coming here and giving
your testimony. We will turn it over to the panel for
questions.
Mr. Jones, do you have some questions to start us off?
Mr. Jones. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr.
Carter, thank you for your kind words about my father and
myself, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I have been in Congress for 19 years. And the
first bill that I introduced was to protect the horses down at
Shackleford Banks. That dealt with the Park Service, not Fish
and Wildlife. Erskine Bowles, who was chief of staff to
President Clinton, was fighting the Department of the Interior,
because those horses were going to ruin the vegetation at
Shackleford Banks. Dr. Pilkey at Duke University said, ``These
horses will destroy the vegetation.'' It's not true. It has
never happened. The horses are existing down there with
whatever insects, ducks, or birds--they are living together. I
mean it is just unbelievable.
Since then, this decree was signed by a Federal judge, that
is true. But Dr. Frost, my comments earlier--and I want to ask
you--when I said that the Park Service in 2007 had an interim
management strategy to govern visitors' access, species
protection, the strategy was backed by a 113-page biological
opinion issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife, which
found that it would not jeopardize piping plover, sea turtles,
and other species. Do you remember that report?
Dr. Frost. I don't remember that report, personally. But as
I understand it, the biological opinion that was issued on the
interim report was issued--there was no jeopardy found, because
it was an interim plan. It was only designed to be in place for
1 or 2 years, until we could do the final planning.
Mr. Jones. Dr. Frost, let me say that in the 19 years I
have been in office--and this was one plan that even the
residents of Dare County were not happy with, but they agreed
to it. And then the extremists, which are destroying America--I
wish that the piping plover could pay taxes, by the way. I
don't think they can. I wish the sea turtles could pay taxes,
but they can't. But the American people have a right to these
recreational areas.
And, yes, I would agree in protecting the species. I worked
hard to protect the red wolf down in Terrell County. But I will
tell you this. If there is not a balance, then one day we won't
protect the endangered species, because there will be no tax
money. That is where this thing is headed. And if the
extremists had not filed a court order regarding the interim--
the plan in 2007 or 2008 that the people in Dare County agreed
to, if the judge had not been involved in it, the lawsuits had
not been filed, we would not even be here today, because you
all would have worked together, you would have agreed. And
again, the people in Dare County weren't really happy, but they
said, ``We will work with the Park Service on this.''
So, my comment, before I close, Mr. Chairman, I want Mr.
Judge to respond to the good news from Mr. Carter. I didn't
realize that the good news was so good for that part of Dare
County.
Mr. Judge. Thank you, Congressman. And it is not. This is a
question of macro versus micro economics. As I stated in my
oral testimony, if things are going great in D.C., it doesn't
necessarily mean they are going great in Richmond. And that is
the distance we have from our two boundaries, the northern
boundary to the southern boundary of our county.
The village of Buxton, you see that--Cape Point is on the
screen right there, and that is the Cape Point Campground. That
is July 31st of this past summer. The business is gone. The
village of Buxton, in the summer time, it sometimes looks like
it is January, it looks like it is a ghost town. And that
affects rental homes, it affects hotels, motels, it affects the
shops and the storekeepers. It affects gasoline sales,
everything.
That village is based on that point, right there, the most
sought-after piece of beach on the East Coast, and possibly the
entire world, for surf fishing, for surfing. At that point you
have the confluence--you have the ocean coming at you two
different ways. It is just a wonderful thing to sit there and
watch it happen. And just to the west of that, as you see it
goes to the left of your screen, is South Beach, a south-facing
beach. It is protected because of the Point, and it is a huge
family vacation destination, because the Atlantic waters are a
little bit calmer there.
And, yes, sir, Congressman, that is--we can sit here and
look at the great success that Dare County has because of the
thousands of hard-working entrepreneurs. But just because the
village of Duck on the northernmost part of our county
experiences double-digit growth does not make a lot of sense,
nor does it help, the people of Hatteras Island, the village of
Buxton, and Frisco.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We will have another round of
questions, if possible.
I am intrigued by--you say you have horses down there? You
have horses down there?
Mr. Jones. Well, we have horses down at Shackleford Banks,
and we have horses in Corolla, which is Currituck, which----
Mr. Bishop. I have about 30,000 head on BLM lands in the
West, if you would like to take them.
Mr. Jones. Well, you are going to have to talk to the Park
Service, because we are fighting them now over the horses in
Corolla.
Mr. Bishop. You got horses coming down there.
Mr. Judge. They would have to get a permit, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Not if you go at night. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Commissioner, as a consequence of the lawsuit
that my colleague was referencing, everyone signed it. There
was a consent decree, and everybody signed it. And the final
rule, as I understand it, reflected many of the
recommendations.
Mr. Judge, did you sign off on this consent decree?
Mr. Judge. Yes, and that is a wonderful question, Ranking
Member, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that.
Yes, I did. I chaired the Dare County Board of Commissioners.
My six colleagues and I, after a painful discussion, we did
sign off on it. There are a couple of gentlemen on the back row
in this hearing room today who thought I was crazy when I came
home that day.
But our alternative was this, sir. It was to agree to the
consent decree or close down the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore. When the very first hearing on this was held on April
4th in 2007 or 2008, excuse my memory, the judge opened the
hearing that he is ready to rule, he is ready to close the
seashore to the public until it can be done.
So, yes, sir. A question of being shot in the head or shot
in the foot, it was a painful decision to make. I had to go to
Hatteras Island and stand before hundreds of people and defend
it.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Having been a supervisor, a county
supervisor back home, I have had to shoot myself in the foot a
couple of times on some stuff. But nevertheless, you end up
with a binding signature at the end of the day.
Mr. Carter, how do you reconcile the Hatteras Islands
occupancy rate with the anecdotes that Commissioner Judge made
in terms of the economic disparity as a consequence of the
policy there?
Mr. Carter. Representative, the only information that we
can go on in terms of how the economy has responded to these
actions on Cape Hatteras Seashore is to look at data that is
actually provided by the county, itself, to the State of North
Carolina, based on their ability to levy a special tax for
occupancy. That requires the counties, who take advantage of
that, to report monthly their occupancy tax, which reflects
their rate of occupancy, obviously.
So, we rely on that information. We have provided that to
the Committee. That is all we can really go on. I guess maybe
the lawyer in me--what I have heard in terms of specific
effects and specific instances, as a lawyer, in court that is
called hearsay, and it is basically not probative. And the only
thing that we can rely on is this objective information that,
in fact, in this case, is provided by the county itself.
And we have actually taken a step of trying to take that
down to Hatteras Island and the area that would be potentially
most affected by this, because it has the greatest area of
seashore.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Carter, this bill puts in place an
interim plan that was rejected by the court. And so, if that
interim plan was insufficient for the court, what becomes the
legal consequences of this, to become law?
Mr. Carter. Well, the court agreed to the consent decree
that was signed by all the parties involved: the conservation
organizations that filed the lawsuit, the county, the ORV
groups, and the Park Service. So it, in effect, did override
the interim plan that this would revert to.
The problem with the interim plan, and the reason the
lawsuit was filed, was that we considered it to be in violation
of the Organic Act, the Enabling Act for Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, the Endangered Species Act, in terms of its effect on
listed species on the seashore. If we went back to that interim
plan, all of those issues would still exist, in terms of the--
--
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Basic fact that this plan does not
comply with the laws that underlie the management of the
National Parks, generally Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
specifically the executive orders that require certain things
be done regarding ORV use on our public lands----
Mr. Grijalva. So we opened the box.
Mr. Carter. Oh, the box--yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, OK.
Mr. Carter. The lid would be totally opened, correct.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Holt, do you have questions to
this particular bill?
Dr. Holt. Yes, I would like to have the time. First, I
believe that the Ranking Member wanted to pursue some other
questioning. Is that right?
Mr. Grijalva. Make a comment.
Dr. Holt. I would yield to the Ranking Member----
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you so much, Mr.----
Dr. Holt [continuing]. For the time he needs.
Mr. Grijalva. The comments about the consent decree and the
judge that approved this consent decree, Mr. Carter, isn't it
correct that he was appointed--nominated, appointed--to the
Federal court, he was nominated by President Reagan? And then
for the court of appeals, renominated again by President Bush,
and then again by the other President Bush. Because I wanted to
find out about that because one of the points being that this
judge had an unreasonable consent decree that people had to
sign.
It seems to me that, given the lineage of the appointments
and who nominated them, in terms of Presidents, that he would
be seeing this kind of very reasonable to economic impact and
business effects of any decision he made. I don't want to--
given judicial temperament and all that, I think it was a judge
that probably, in this instance, couldn't be called somebody
that was entirely on the side of any environmental concern that
might have come up at the time.
It was just a comment, and I will leave it at that, and
yield back to my friend. And thank you.
Dr. Holt. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Carter, I have arrived here and missed some of the
hearing, but this is an important question for me. I have heard
from many people over recent years about the restriction of
vehicles on Cape Hatteras Beach. I have heard from people who
feel that it would be harmful to property values and harmful to
tourism. And I realize that we have a responsibility here to do
more than just look after local economies.
But since that was raised so much in the phone calls that I
received, and the letters that I received, and because I
promised my constituents and others who contacted me that I
would give this all due consideration, let me ask you to
summarize what I believe you have already said. What has been
the effect on the economy, and what can you say is the effect
on property values of the vehicle restrictions?
Mr. Carter. Well, I can't speak to property values, so I
will take that off.
In terms of looking at the economy of the area as reflected
in standardized reports that reflect economic activity, which
is primarily based on tourism--this is a tourist area, it is a
national seashore, it is a beach, that is why people visit--one
thing that is important to understand is a very small number of
people who come to this seashore come to drive on the beaches.
I am one of them. And it is estimated to be about 4 to 5
percent of the visitors have any interest in driving on the
beach. The rest come to enjoy the beach.
If you look at the economic data reported by Dare County
from its tourism tax and Department of Commerce figures, since
these restrictions have gone in place under the court-ordered
ORV restrictions, and through the first year of the management
plan last year, tourism revenues have remained steady or
increased, and actual visitation at the Park--you may have
missed this piece of the testimony--visitation at the Park last
year, under the first year of the plan, was the highest it has
been since the year 2003.
Dr. Holt. OK. And we don't have time enough--window of time
to talk about property values yet, I suppose. Is that right?
Mr. Carter. That is correct.
Dr. Holt. OK.
Mr. Carter. And, of course, that would be compelling, in--
--
Dr. Holt. Now--of course a principal reason for these
regulations was to look after the natural life, the wildlife,
and biological, ecological health of the seashore. The numbers
there, as I understand it, are unmistakable, that with the
restrictions, wildlife is prospering. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Carter. That is correct. The Park Service required us
to provide annual reports of surveys of all of the key species
on the seashore. We have compiled that, looking back to before
the restrictions were put in place, up until the restrictions
were put in place, and afterwards.
And the trends are unmistakable. Essentially, every species
on the seashore has benefited. The numbers are going up. And it
is all because we have done something to prevent disturbance at
the key period of the year, when they are trying to occupy an
area, reproduce, nest----
Dr. Holt. Thank you.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. On the seashore.
Dr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. I
appreciate Mr. Grijalva pointing out that even Republicans can
appoint judges. That is very kind of you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. So Mr. Judge, let me get the priority, or at
least the chronology right. You were working on a solution.
Then came the lawsuits, then came the consent decree. That was
the order in which things occurred. Am I correct in that
chronology?
Mr. Judge. It began in 2005 with a public hearing process.
It led to an interim plan in 2007. On the eve of the beginning
of negotiated rulemaking, Southern Environmental Law Center
filed suit on behalf of its clients, which resulted in a
consent decree in April the following year. And then we went
through the hoax of negotiated rulemaking for 2 years, and have
what we have today.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Mr. Judge, look. According to the
testimony that we have had today, or have been given, 39
percent of the beaches are closed to ORVs, and the rest is
completely open to pedestrians. How come that is not
sufficient? Does this accurately portray the visitor access?
Mr. Judge. Well, no, sir. There are sections of beach that,
while they record them as open to vehicular access, they are
unaccessible to vehicular access, because there is a buffer on
the north and the south boundaries. So they log it as open,
they record it as open, but it is unaccessible, because of
buffers from other locations on both the north and the south
side.
The most popular areas of the beach for the vehicles are
Oregon Inlet Spit, which is basically not allowed to us ever
again, Cape Point, and then Hatteras Inlet Spit. And we are not
talking--everybody likes to talk about driving on the beach,
driving on the beach. It is access.
This Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area was
designed to be accessed by a car. There are 11 accesses, there
are 805 parking spaces. You have a daily population of 50,000
people. Unless you are affluent enough to rent one of the few
ocean-front houses, you have got to either walk miles or you
drive your car to the beach, you drive it across 1 of the 11
access points, you park, you get out, and you enjoy the day. It
is not this highway thoroughfare that it was originally
designed for by the Park, as to how you got up and down,
because you didn't have a road.
So, statistics can make any argument for any side. But
where the people want to go, they cannot get there.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. I think staff have been down
to this place, and loved it. No one was there. Perfect
situation. Never stood in line for anything.
So, I am assuming that your answer to my last question
would answer the other particular question. If I listen to the
Park Service testimony, everything is fine, business is
booming, little creatures are stirring and mating and
multiplying. Everything is going upward. But that is, you are
telling me, is picking bits and pieces of the picture, and does
not attribute to the complete overall view of what is taking
place?
Mr. Judge. Absolutely. July 31, 2012, look at all those
empty--I mean there is only a dozen campers in there at Cape
Point at Buxton at that most crucial and the biggest visitation
part of Hatteras Island. Nobody talks about the cyclical nature
of reproduction of the sea turtles and of the birds. Nobody
talks about the fact that we are at the southernmost mating
area and the northernmost wintering area for the piping plover.
You are not going to have but so many piping plover to be
there.
Their County Board of Commissioners stands and supports
preservation of all species, from bird to man, and vegetables
and plants. But we also want to share the beach. That is all we
are asking for, sir, is to share the beach.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Frost, once again, this bill
should not have been here this year or last year. And it is
another effort where the Park Service needs to deal with the
local community in a much more rational way than we are doing
right now. This is another failure of the Park Service.
The Park Service quotes a Michigan State study that says
how they are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into local
communities by their presence being there. That is picking and
choosing the criteria one more time. And like the last bill,
this one should not be before Congress. It should have been
solved at a different level by different people with different
results, and dealing with the local communities.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Jones, do you have more
questions for this panel?
Mr. Jones. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, Mr. Holt included. This area of Dare County is at the
end of the county. I will say south. It is made up of villages.
You don't have a Wal-Mart. Yes, you have some drugstores and
some grocery stores. And the majority of people that live in
that area of Dare County are your hardworking people, many of
them are fishermen. They don't have a lot of money. Yes, the
people that visit bring money, which helps the economy, I
realize that. But this again comes right down to a simple
situation of where is the balance between the Federal
Government and the people? There is no balance.
If the Southern Law Center had not filed suit, this thing
would have been worked out. I mean in fairness to the Park
Service, they were being sued. They had to reach a decision.
But this, again, is another example of the over-reach by
the Federal Government. And for the sake of the people of Dare
County, I hope--and it will probably have to go back through
the court system, and America is financially broke, I am sure
that the Park Service right now is worried about sequestration
and furloughing people and changing--but this whole thing needs
to be worked out. It needs to be worked out. And all this bill
would do, obviously, is give the people a chance to have a
voice to defend their right, as taxpayers. So thank you for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva, do you have any other
questions? Mr. Holt, do you have any other questions?
Dr. Holt. No. I thank the Chair and I am pleased to have
this hearing under the gaze and the name of Walter Jones. Thank
you.
Mr. Bishop. I don't even know how to respond to that one.
OK.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your effort of coming up this way
to give us testimony. Thank you, Mr. Frost, for sticking around
for all three bills. I appreciate that. Commissioner Judge,
thank you for coming up here. Mr. Carter, at the same time, we
appreciate your time and your effort. Appreciate all the
Members who have asked questions and presented them. It has
been a very informative hearing.
With that, unless there are other questions, other issues,
once again I would ask all the people who have testified, even
those who aren't here, that we may have further questions. We
may send them to you in writing. If you would respond to that,
we would be appreciative.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional Materials Submitted for the Record]
Letter Submitted for the Record by Eric J. Holmes
City of Vancouver,
Vancouver, WA, February 13, 2013.
The Honorable Jaime Herrera Beutler,
United States House of Representatives,
1130 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Herrera Beutler:
Thank you for your strong interest and support of Pearson Air
Museum. Ensuring public access to this unique asset is a high priority
for the City of Vancouver and your efforts in Congress are truly
appreciated.
I have reviewed your proposed legislation that would transfer the
building and 7 acres surrounding Pearson Air Museum to the City of
Vancouver for long term stewardship and operation.
This approach would satisfy the city's interest in ensuring that
the Pearson Air Museum Complex continues to be managed in a way that
serves the original intent of providing the widest and best possible
use for citizens and visitors alike. The City supports this approach
and the legislation you have drafted. Please know that I would be happy
to serve as a witness in support of the bill should the need arise.
Again, I appreciate your hard work on an issue that is so important
to our community.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Holmes,
City Manager.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by Representative Paul Tine, 6th
District
North Carolina General Assembly,
House of Representatives,
Raleigh, NC, March 7, 2013.
The Honorable Warren Judge, Chairman,
Dare County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 1000,
Manteo, North Carolina 27954.
Dear Mr. Judge:
Your letter of March 6, 2013, soliciting my support of H.R. 819
recently introduced in the United States House of Representatives is
well received. H.R. 819 would restore balance and common sense to
management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
(CHNSRA) by overturning the National Park Service's Final Rule and
Consent Decree that have excessively restricted human access to CHNSRA.
Residents and visitors deserve access to our most precious natural
resources, and I wholeheartedly support H.R. 819. Its passage is
important to restore the promise made to the people enacted by Congress
in 1937.
I am proud to have you represent Dare County on this important
issue and offer any assistance that you or the Board may need.
Sincerely,
Paul Tine.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by Senator Bill Cook
North Carolina General Assembly,
Senate Chamber, State Legislative Building,
Raleigh, NC, March 11, 2013.
United States House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
1017 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Committee Members:
I write to you in support of House Resolution 819, introduced by
Congressman Walter Jones. This act is needed to preserve access to Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, and to ensure that people
are not unreasonably restricted in their access of the seashore.
Furthermore, this resolution has the support of the people of the
area, and it would continue to encourage tourists to visit our
beautiful seashore. I encourage you to support this resolution and
allow folks continued access to the beautiful beach and ocean with
which God has blessed us.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Senator Bill Cook,
North Carolina Senate District 1.
______
Statement Submitted for the Record by the County of Currituck
resolution supporting h.r. 819 preserving access to the cape hatteras
national seashore recreational area act
WHEREAS, H.R. 819 introduced by Congressman Walter Jones (NC-3) to
preserve access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational
Area, reintroduces a previous bill that passed the House of
Representatives in the last Congress but failed it make it out of
Senate committee; and
WHEREAS, H.R. 819 would restore balance and common sense to Park
Service management by overturning a final rule implemented by the
National Park Service in mid-February 2012, as well as the 2008 U.S.
District court approved Consent Decree, both of which excessively
restrict human access to the Recreational Area; and
WHEREAS, H.R. 819 would assure taxpayers the right to access the
recreational areas they own by reinstituting the Park Service's 2007
Interim Management Strategy, which was backed up by a 113 page
Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finding
that species of concern, including piping plover and sea turtles, would
not be jeopardized; and
WHEREAS, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
(CHNSRA) was created by Congress in 1937 as America's first National
Seashore with the promise that people would always have access for
recreation; and
WHEREAS, a tourism based economy has been developed on Bodie
Island, Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island, where access to the
beaches of this area has always been the defining element of the
visitor's complete seashore experience and the foundation of the area's
economic base upon which thousands of families depend for their
livelihood; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Currituck County Board of
Commissioners supports open public access to the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreational Area consistent with the promises made in the
enabling legislation and supports H.R. 819 as effective legislation
that would balance resource management with recreational access for
Currituck County and Dare County's residents and visitors.
ADOPTED this the 4th day of March 2013.
S. Paul O'Neal,
Chairman.
______
Statement Submitted for the Record From The Town of Manteo
resolution 2013-02 supporting h.r. 819 preserving access to the cape
hatteras national seashore recreational area act
WHEREAS, H.R. 819 introduced by Congressman Walter Jones (NC-3) to
preserve access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational
Area, reintroduces a previous bill that passed the House of
Representatives in the last Congress but failed it make it out of
Senate committee; and
WHEREAS, H.R. 819 would restore balance and common sense to Park
Service management by overturning a final rule implemented by the
National Park Service in mid-February 2012, as well as the 2008 U.S.
District court approved Consent Decree, both of which excessively
restrict human access to the Recreational Area; and
WHEREAS, H.R. 819 would assure taxpayers the right to access the
recreational areas they own by reinstituting the Park Service's 2007
Interim Management Strategy, which was backed up by a 113-page
Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finding
that species of concern, including piping plover and sea turtles, would
not be jeopardized; and
WHEREAS, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
(CHNSRA) was created by Congress in 1937 as America's first National
Seashore with the promise that people would always have access for
recreation; and
WHEREAS, a tourism based economy has been developed on Bodie
Island, Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island, where access to the
beaches of this area has always been the defining element of the
visitor's complete seashore experience and the foundation of the area's
economic base upon which thousands of families depend for their
livelihood; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Manteo Board of
Commissioners supports open public access to the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore Recreational Area consistent with the promises made in the
enabling legislation and supports H.R. 819 as effective legislation
that would balance resource management with recreational access for
Dare County's residents and visitors.
This 6th day of March 2013.
Jamie Daniels,
Mayor.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by Jeanette M. Bader
City of Vancouver,
Vancouver, WA, March 19, 2013.
The Honorable Doc Hastings,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Edward Markey,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources,
1329 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey:
Thank you for your consideration of H.R. 716 concerning the
ownership of Pearson Air Museum, which is part of the Vancouver
National Historic Reserve. Although the City of Vancouver is profoundly
disappointed that the National Park Service and the Fort Vancouver
Trust were not able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement for the
operation of Pearson Air Museum, we feel that it is in the community's
best interest to resolve this issue in a way that allows the Museum to
continue to operate much as it has for the last 11 years.
The City of Vancouver is willing to accept ownership of the Pearson
Air Museum complex including the four buildings and surrounding seven
acres should Congress deem this the best course of action. I understand
concern has been raised about the City's willingness to protect the
archeological and cultural resources of the site. There are federal
regulations relating to protection of cultural resources that as a non-
federal agency, the City is not required to follow including the
National Historic Preservation Act of and the Archeological Resources
Protection Act. However, when the U.S. Army transferred ownership of
the West Barracks to the City of Vancouver in 2007, these same types of
concerns were raised about the City's ability to appropriately care for
and respect the cultural and archeological resources of that property.
Those concerns were successfully addressed through restrictions in the
deed of ownership, restrictions that were agreed to by the National
Park Service and the Tribes. The City would be willing to agree to
similar restrictions in the deed of ownership for Pearson Air Museum.
The City of Vancouver, as befits one of the oldest non-native
settlements in the Pacific Northwest, also has some of the state's most
stringent archeology regulations and, notwithstanding the national
register listing, our own archeology ordinance (VMC 20.710
Archaeological Resources Protection) would require that any work done
on the Historic Reserve have an archaeological resource survey prepared
which requires notification of interested tribes.
In addition, we have a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
National Park Service to handle all archeology work on City-owned
property within in the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. If the City
were to become the owners of Pearson Air Museum, that MOA would also
apply to the Air Museum property. The City also has an MOA with the
National Park Service to handle any issues related to the Native
American Graves Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) that affect City-owned
property within the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. Both the
archeology and NAGPRA agreements could be extended to cover Pearson Air
Museum but would need to have agreement by the Park Service.
The City of Vancouver is extremely proud of our heritage and is
actively engaged in work to preserve and protect the Vancouver National
Historic Reserve--which includes Pearson Air Museum. The City was
responsible for the construction of the Museum and played a lead role
in raising over $3 million for the project. Through our agreement with
the National Park Service to build and operate the Museum, which was
recently terminated, we have been responsible for the maintenance of
the building and grounds since the Museum opened. We are proud of
Pearson Air Museum and committed to continue its operation as a
community and educational facility while preserving the historic
character and integrity of the site.
I am happy to provide additional information or assurances as
needed and can be reached at (360) 487-8606 or
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Jeanette M. Bader, M.P.A.,
Program & Policy Development Manager.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by General Gordon R. Sullivan,
United States Army (Ret.)
Association of the United States Army,
Arlington, Virginia, March 13, 2013.
The Honorable Don Young,
United States House of Representatives,
2314 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Young:
On behalf of the members of the Association of the United States
Army, I write thank you for introducing H.R. 588, the Vietnam Veterans
Donor Acknowledgement Act of 2013. This legislation would amend the
Commemorative Work Act (CWA) to allow recognition of private donors who
contribute to the visitor center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Such
acknowledgement will help provide needed funding to complete
construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center.
AUSA strongly supports the enactment of this legislation, and we
look forward to working with you to ensure that the story of the
service and sacrifice of Vietnam veterans will be told in perpetuity
through the efforts of those who create the visitor center.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue and your unwavering
support of our Nation's veterans.
Gordon R. Sullivan,
General. USA Retired.
______
Statement Submitted for the Record by the Yakama Nation
h.r. 716--legislation to transfer federal land within the ft. vancouver
national historic site and the vancouver national historic reserve to
the city of vancouver
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
Thank you for accepting this testimony of the Yakama Nation for the
hearing record on H.R. 716 and for considering our views.
We are hesitant to oppose legislation introduced by a member of the
Washington State Congressional Delegation as we have always prided
ourselves in reaching out and working with members of our State's
delegation and indeed with all Members of Congress whenever we can. We
view Indian matters as being a totally non-partisan issue as the Treaty
of 1855 that our ancestors signed with the United States was not with
Democrats or Republicans but with the Federal Government as a whole and
it was ratified on a bi-partisan basis by the United States Senate and
signed by the President of the United States. The provisions in that
Treaty guide us in much of our interactions with the local, State and
Federal governments to this day.
We must stand with our ancestors who are, to this day, buried at
Ft. Vancouver and where many significant Yakama artifacts are still
uncovered on a regular basis. We therefore oppose H.R. 716 and ask the
honorable members of this Subcommittee to not report it out or allow
further action, at least not without some important changes.
The area now known as Fort Vancouver was used extensively by the
Yakama people for thousands of years prior to the establishment of the
Fort. It is an area of great historical importance to our people where
we fished, hunted, gathered food and medicines and did extensive
trading. The fact that the Klickitat Trail exists to this day,
connecting Fort Simcoe on the Yakama Reservation to Ft. Vancouver is
testimonial to our long connection. The fact that our people are buried
there makes this area sacred to us and a place that must be revered. I
am sure you feel the same way about cemeteries that house your
ancestors, the difference being our connections go back not a few
hundred years but to time immemorial. Indian artifacts found at Ft.
Vancouver go back many thousands of years. Fort Vancouver as we now
know it was established in 1825 and was the Hudson Bay Company's
administrative center and principal supply depot. It is difficult to
imagine any place in the Pacific Northwest of more historical
importance to a multitude of cultures than Ft. Vancouver. It is hard to
imagine that a multi-cultural village thrived at that time with
inhabitants of over 35 different ethnic and tribal groups including the
Yakama people. It is a testimonial to the power of the Hudson Bay
Company and its trading prowess that Ft. Vancouver's village housed
native people as from as far away as Hawaii to the west and the
Iroquois to the east. Between 1824 and 1860 Ft. Vancouver was perhaps
the preeminent trading post in the Pacific Northwest and was visited
regularly by our Yakama ancestors. From 1860 to 1948 during periods of
occupation of Ft. Vancouver by the U.S. Army, members of my Tribe and
others were kept as prisoners in the Barracks. Some died and were
buried there and the Barracks exist until this day, preserved and
protected by the National Park Service.
In just the past decade alone, there have been three repatriations
of remains of Indian people who were unintentionally dug up during
construction projects at Ft. Vancouver and who were then properly
buried in the cemetery following the traditions our people have
practiced for thousands and thousands of years. Having been properly
interred the spirits of those unearthed can now rest.
It is only because Ft. Vancouver is Federal land that we are
consulted when remains are inadvertently unearthed. Because Ft.
Vancouver is federal there are essential Federal laws that the Congress
enacted that are applicable. These include:
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
470)
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act. of 1978 (42
U.S.C. 1996)
The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16
U.S.C. 470aa-mm)
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001)
Additionally, the Obama Administration, as had every
administration, Republican and Democrat, including and since Richard
Nixon's, has agreed to deal with Indian tribes on a Government-to-
Government basis. The present Administration issued an Executive
Memorandum on November 5, 2009, concurring with Executive Order 13175
issued on November 6, 2000, directing that Federal agencies treat
Indian tribes on a governmental basis and to undertake consultation
with tribes affected by agency actions.
We are pleased that the staff at Ft. Vancouver understand the
importance of these Federal laws and that they regularly reach out to
officials and archeologists of the Yakama Nation when artifacts are
uncovered as happens quite often. Unless the transfer legislation were
to somehow require the City of Vancouver to comply with these Federal
statutes (which normally would not apply on private land), our
interests, and those of many others, at Ft. Vancouver will not be
protected by H.R. 716. We should point out that any transfer of Federal
land is considered a Federal undertaking and under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Yakama Nation and other Tribes
must be consulted.
The acres proposed to be transferred have not been archeologically
investigated but based on previous findings throughout Ft. Vancouver
they are likely to contain artifacts of importance to our people.
Additionally, within the proposed transfer, the area north of the
Headquarters Building; a U.S. Army component; and deposits connected to
a World War I kiln in the Spruce Mill, near the hangar, have known
archeological resources that should continue to be protected by some of
the above referenced Federal laws.
We have tried to follow the back and forth between the National
Park Service and the Fort Vancouver National Trust (``Trust'') and find
it difficult to believe that this dispute cannot be resolved short of
ripping key acreage from the heart of Ft. Vancouver and transferring it
to the city. While the work of the Trust should be appreciated by all
who enjoy Ft. Vancouver, the leaders of the Trust seem to have an
attitude that because they contributed funds, sweat equity, staffing
and objects to the Pearson Air Museum that they, in some de facto
sense, own it or that they should be allowed to operate it in any
manner they deem appropriate regardless of whether such actions are
fundamentally contrary to long standing regulations that guide the
operation of all National Parks. Many National Parks have components
that have been paid for via donations or operated cooperatively without
the private partner suggesting that they don't want to follow Federal
law or policy which the Trust has publicly stated. The NPS on the other
hand, should endeavor to be as flexible as it can be in accommodating
the interests of its neighbors and partners. If activities that were
once allowed are now going to be prohibited or greatly curtailed, the
onus is on the Park to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence
that such activities will be injurious to the Park, to visitors or to
other overriding Federal interests.
Perhaps Congresswoman Herrera Beutler and the bi-partisan
leadership of this committee could solicit the help of the successful
mediators now working at the Interior Department's Office of
Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution (CADR) and the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, a program of the Udall
Foundation. We are aware of examples wherein these two groups were able
to mediate disputes more acrimonious than this one.
Until all aspects of professional mediation have been tried, this
legislation is premature and creates precedent that we find alarming.
Will the Congress simply remove acres within National Parks every time
a contractor on that acreage and the host Park Superintendent disagree
on procedures? We urge the committee to reject this legislation and
seek the help of these good mediators.
Thank you.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States
March 12, 2013.
The Honorable Don Young,
2314 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20515.
Dear Congressman Young:
On behalf of the 2 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries we are pleased to offer
our strong support for H.R. 588, the ``Vietnam Veterans Donor
Acknowledgement Act of 2013.''
Each year millions of visitors stand before the Vietnam Memorial
Wall to pay homage to a friend or loved one, or to see and feel the
ultimate sacrifice and cost of war. The Wall is both a classroom to
learn and a sacred place to grieve and heal. There are 58,272 names
engraved on the Wall, each with a story that is not being told.
H.R. 588 will allow donors to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor
Center to be acknowledged for their contributions to the Center,
allowing for needed funding to complete its construction to provide a
place for these stories to be told. The VFW strongly supports the
enactment this legislation and we look forward to working with you to
ensure the Wall that heals can tell of the lives that were lost during
the Vietnam War.
Thank you again for your leadership on this issue and your
unwavering support of our Nation's veterans.
Sincerely,
Robert E, Wallace,
Executive Director, VFW Washington Office.