U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

65-625 PDF 2011

H.R. 306, COROLLA WILD HORSES PROTECTION ACT; H.R. 588/S. 266, TO REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE SAM D. HAMILTON 

NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; 

& H.R. 258, CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2011 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, 

OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, April 7, 2011 

Serial No. 112-22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS 

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Statement of Members: 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands ................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia ...................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Harper, Hon. Gregg, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Mississippi ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement on H.R. 588 and S. 266 ......................................... 10 

Letter from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation submitted 

for the record .......................................................................................... 11 

Hutchins, Dr. Michael, Executive Director/CEO, The Wildlife Society ....... 19 

Prepared statement on H.R. 306 ............................................................. 21 

Jones, Hon. Walter B., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina .......................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement on H.R. 306 ............................................................. 7 

Mann, Dr. Roger L., Professor of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of 

Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, 

Virginia .......................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement on H.R. 258 ............................................................. 18 

McCalpin, Karen H., Executive Director, Corolla Wild Horse Fund, Inc., 

Corolla, North Carolina ................................................................................ 23 

Prepared statement on H.R. 306 ............................................................. 25 

Siekaniec, Greg, Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement on H.R. 588 and S. 266 ......................................... 13 

Additional materials supplied: 

Marczyk, Bernie, Governmental Affairs Representative, Ducks Unlimited, 

Annapolis, Maryland, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 258 ........ 38 

Siglin, Doug, Director of Federal Affairs, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 

Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 258 ............................................. 36 

Skinner, Katherine D., State Director, North Carolina, The Nature 

Conservancy, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 306 ...................... 34 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 306, TO DIRECT THE 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO AN 

AGREEMENT WITH THE COROLLA WILD HORSE 

FUND, CURRITUCK COUNTY, AND THE STATE OF 

NORTH CAROLINA TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF FREE-ROAMING WILD HORSES IN AND 

AROUND THE CURRITUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE. ‘‘COROLLA WILD HORSES PROTECTION 

ACT’’; H.R. 588, TO REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE SAM D. HAMILTON NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; AND 

S. 266, A BILL TO REDESIGNATE THE NOXUBEE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS THE SAM D. HAMILTON NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; 

H.R. 258, TO REQUIRE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO PREPARE A CROSSCUT 

BUDGET FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN THE 

CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED, TO REQUIRE THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO 

DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

‘‘CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2011’’ 

Thursday, April 7, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Wittman, Southerland, 

Harris, Bordallo and Sablan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. Under Committee Rule 4[f], 

opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee so that we can hear from our witnesses more quickly. However, I ask unanimous consent to include 

any other Member’s opening statement in the hearing record if 

submitted to the Clerk by close of business today. Hearing no 

objection, so ordered. 

Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on 

four legislative proposals. The first bill has been introduced by our 

distinguished Committee colleague, the gentleman from the 1st 

Congressional District in Virginia, Congressman Rob Wittman, 

whose timing was perfect this morning. H.R. 258 would require an 

interagency crosscut budget that will provide clarity and Federal 

2 

funding for restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, 

this legislation will require that an adaptive management plan be 

adopted for Chesapeake Bay restoration activities. This plan would 

institute measurable objectives to ensure that both Federal and 

state dollars spent on restoration are producing positive results. 

The Chesapeake Bay supports more than 3,600 species of fish, 

plants and wildlife, and more than $1 billion in economic activity 

is generated from one of the largest estuaries in the world. 

While millions of tax dollars have been spent to improve the 

quality of the Bay, these funds are distributed among many agencies and departments. The many Federal and state Chesapeake 

Bay restoration programs lack a single, comprehensive reporting 

system for the funding of these activities. The fundamental goal of 

H.R. 258 is to eliminate this serious shortcoming. 

The second bill, H.R. 306, has been introduced by our colleague 

from North Carolina, Congressman Walter B. Jones. Now, the goal 

of his legislation is to try to save the herd of wild Corolla horses 

by requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into a new management agreement. I find it curious that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service feels these beautiful horses, whose ancestors arrived on the 

shores of North Carolina nearly 500 years ago, to be not native to 

this ecosystem and pest animals, yet this same agency has spent 

millions of dollars trying to protect, restore and save the population 

of such listed species as the Delhi Sands fly, delta smelt, kangaroo 

rat, New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, and Texas blind salamander. 

I suspect that more than a few Americans would find these species to be pests. While this is not a hearing on the Endangered 

Species Act, what we do know is that the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, 

who have asked for changes to the management plan, passionately 

believes that Corolla wild horses are being managed for extinction. 

Finally, our colleague, Congressman Gregg Harper, has introduced 

H.R. 588, a bill to rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge 

in Mississippi after former Fish and Wildlife Service Director Sam 

D. Hamilton who unexpectedly died on February 20, 2010. Director 

Hamilton had a distinguished 30-year career with the Service, and 

it is my understanding that his first outdoor jobs were banding 

wood ducks and building waterfowl pens at the Noxubee National 

Wildlife Refuge. Similar legislation, S. 266, has already passed the 

Senate and I hope our witnesses will discuss any differences or concerns with that legislation, as well as the House version. I look forward to hearing the testimony on these proposals. I am now 

pleased to recognize our Ranking Democratic Member from the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Congressman 

Sablan, for any statement he would like to make. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:] 

Statement by The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, on H.R. 258, H.R. 306, 

H.R. 588 and S. 266 

Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on four legislative 

proposals. The first bill has been introduced by our distinguished Committee colleague, the gentleman from the 1st Congressional District in Virginia, Congressman 

Rob Wittman. 

H.R. 258 would require an interagency cross-cut budget that will provide clarity 

in federal funding for restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, this 

3 

legislation will require that an adaptive management plan be adopted for Chesapeake Bay restoration activities. This plan would institute measurable objectives to 

ensure that both federal and state dollars spent on restoration are producing positive results. 

The Chesapeake Bay supports more than 3,600 species of fish, plants and wildlife, and more than $1 billion in economic activity is generated from one of the largest 

estuaries in the world. While millions of tax dollars have been spent to improve the 

quality of the Bay, these funds are distributed among many agencies and departments. The many federal and state Chesapeake Bay restoration programs lack a 

single comprehensive reporting system for the funding of these activities. The fundamental goal of H.R. 258 is to eliminate this serious shortcoming. 

The second bill, H.R. 306, has been introduced by our colleague from North Carolina, Congressman Walter B. Jones. The goal of his legislation is to try to save the 

herd of wild Corolla horses by requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

a new management agreement. 

I find it curious that the Fish and Wildlife Service feels these beautiful horses 

whose ancestors arrived on the shores of North Carolina nearly 500 years ago to 

be ‘‘not native to this ecosystem’’ and ‘‘pest animals’’. Yet, this same agency has 

spent millions of tax dollars trying to protect, restore and save the population of 

such listed species as the Delhi Sands fly, delta smelt, Kangaroo rats, New Mexico 

ridge-nosed rattlesnakes and Texas blind salamanders. I suspect that more than a 

few Americans would find these species to be ‘‘pests’’. While this is not a hearing 

on the Endangered Species Act, what we do know is that the Corolla Wild Horse 

Fund, who have asked for changes to the management plan, passionately believes 

that Corolla wild horses are being managed for ‘‘extinction’’. 

Finally, our colleague Congressman Gregg Harper has introduced H.R. 588, a bill 

to rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi after former Fish 

and Wildlife Service Director Sam D. Hamilton who unexpectedly died on 

February 20, 2010. Director Hamilton had a distinguished 30 year career with the 

Service and it is my understanding that his first outdoors jobs was banding wood 

ducks and building waterfowl pens at the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Similar 

legislation, S. 266, has already passed the Senate and I hope our witnesses will discuss any differences or concerns with that legislation as well as the House version. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony on these proposals. I am now pleased to 

recognize our Ranking Democratic Member from the Commonwealth of Northern 

Marianas, Congressman Sablan, for any statement he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORIO SABLAN, A DELEGATE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN 

MARIANA ISLANDS 

Mr. SABLAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

good morning, everyone. Congressman Jones, thank you for being 

here with us today. I look forward to hearing about your bill, 

H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act, which I understand will statutorily direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

formally enter into an agreement with other governmental and 

nongovernmental partners to ensure a long-term, sustainable wild 

horse herd on the Currituck Outer Banks in North Carolina. I hope 

I got that right. The management of non-native wildlife is always 

a challenge, including in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, so I will be interested to hear the different perspectives of our witnesses. 

We appreciate you being here as well, Congressman Harper, to 

testify on your bill, H.R. 588, which would redesignate the 

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton 

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Although I have never had the 

chance to meet Director Hamilton, it is abundantly clear that everyone who worked with him during his three-plus decades of public service had the utmost respect and admiration for him. His lifelong commitment to conservation and restoration of some of the nation’s most important species and ecosystems started at Noxubee 

4 

National Wildlife Refuge and it is fitting, I think, that this place 

is memorialized in his honor. Finally, I look forward to hearing 

about a bill introduced by our Subcommittee colleague, Congressman Wittman, H.R. 258. The Chesapeake Bay Accountability and 

Recovery Act of 2011 would increase coordination and accountability by requiring a crosscut project and adaptive management 

for all restoration activities in the Bay. I appreciate my colleague’s 

efforts to improve accounting and oversight over these restoration 

activities which will enhance and recover the resources of the Bay. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and 

learning more about these issues. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Sablan, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, on 

H.R. 306, H.R. 588/S. 266, and H.R. 258 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congressman Jones, thank you for being here with us today. I look forward to 

hearing about your bill, H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act, which I 

understand would statutorily direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to formally 

enter into an agreement with other governmental and non-governmental partners 

to ensure a long-term sustainable wild horse herd on the Currituck Outer Banks 

in North Carolina. The management of non-native wildlife is always a challenge, including in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, so I will be interested to hear the different perspectives of our witnesses. 

We appreciate you being here as well, Congressman Harper, to testify on your 

bill, H.R. 588, which would redesignate the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge as 

the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Although I never had the 

chance to meet Director Hamilton, it is abundantly clear that everyone who worked 

with him during his three plus decades of public service had the utmost respect and 

admiration for him. His lifelong commitment to conservation and restoration of 

some of the Nation’s most important species and ecosystems started at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge and it is fitting that this place is memorialized in his honor. 

Finally, I look forward to hearing about a bill introduced by our Subcommittee 

colleague, Congressman Wittman. H.R. 258, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability 

and Recovery Act of 2011 would increase coordination and accountability by requiring a crosscut budget and adaptive management for all restoration activities in the 

Bay. I appreciate my colleague’s efforts to improve accounting and oversight over 

these restoration activities, which will enhance and recover the resources of the Bay. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and learning more 

about these issues. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. Based on the traditions of 

this Subcommittee, I would like to now recognize my good friend 

and colleague, Rob Wittman, for any opening statement he would 

like to make on this bill, H.R. 258. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to bring this bill before the Committee. As you know, 

the bill was also submitted in the 111th Congress where it passed 

the House 418 to 1. It is a very elemental part of what I believe 

needs to happen to increase the efforts to restore the Bay. It revolves around two fairly simple concepts. One, crosscut budgeting, 

and that simply means that where every penny is spent on the 

Bay, we will have a single place in the Federal budget where you 

can see exactly how much is being spent, and then from there you 

5 

can drill down and see exactly what agency is spending what. That 

creates a transparency there that leads to the ability to make sure 

that agencies are accountable, and the accountability part is the 

second element of what is called adaptive management. 

Just like you would do if you owned a business, you make 

changes along the way depending on what is the most effective expenditure dollar. So if you are seeing that a particular practice is 

effective in reducing nitrogen, you would want to make sure you 

continue that practice. If there was one practice you were funding 

that is not particularly effective, you would want to make sure that 

you either made changes to it or that you redirected resources to 

something that was working. The same goes for other restoration 

practices on the Bay. Whether it is oyster restoration or sturgeon 

restoration, the concept is applicable across those Bay programs. So 

this bill merely puts in place those particular elements to make 

sure that there is transparency and that there is accountability in 

the efforts that go on with the Bay. 

Some of the frustration that many of us have with what happens 

in Bay efforts is that you see multiple agencies doing many things, 

many times without coordination and many times without sharing 

data, many times without looking at the outcomes and how those 

outcomes are getting the total Bay effort toward restoration, 

whether it is through resources or whether it is for water quality. 

I think you will hear a little bit later on from Dr. Mann who works 

at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science about their experience 

and how they deal with the many different agencies. They are the 

lead agency in Virginia to provide direction and scientific information to the Virginia agencies and other agencies up and down the 

Bay watershed as to what is happening with the Bay. 

How are particular efforts either being effective or not being effective? I know in my days in working with Bay water quality I 

saw many of those instances where if there was just a little more 

coordination, a little more transparency there, we could do so much 

more and make sure, too, that we are accelerating those efforts. As 

you know, right now the Chesapeake Bay Act is up for reauthorization. Many of the elements there in restoring the Chesapeake Bay 

haven’t gotten to where we need to be as far as restoration. So I 

truly believe that this will be one of those elements to help elevate 

that, create that transparency and streamline things to make sure 

that we are focused on outcomes and coordination. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to bring this bill before the Subcommittee 

today, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Robert J. Wittman, a Representative 

in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia, on H.R. 258 

Chairman John Fleming, thank you very much for holding this hearing to consider legislation related to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 258, The Chesapeake Bay Accountability 

and Recovery Act of 2011. 

I am honored to represent Virginia’s First Congressional District. Improving the 

health of the Chesapeake Bay is a priority to me and many of my constituents. 

I believe there is a sense of frustration in the Chesapeake Bay watershed about 

the progress made to restore the Bay. Yes, there have been successes. However, 

with all of the federal, state, local and private partner investment we would all like 

6 

to see more accomplishments. Better accounting and more flexible management are 

essential to restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

My legislation, H.R. 258, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act, 

would implement and strengthen management techniques like crosscut budgeting 

and adaptive management –to ensure we get more bang for our buck and continue 

to make progress in Bay restoration efforts. Both techniques will ensure that we’re 

coordinating how restoration dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how individual projects fit into the bigger picture. That way, we’re not 

duplicating efforts, spending money we don’t need to or, worse, working at cross 

purposes. 

H.R. 258 would require OMB in coordination with state and federal agencies involved in the Bay to report to Congress on the status of Chesapeake Bay restoration 

activities. 

This legislation would also require EPA to develop and implement an adaptive 

management plan for Chesapeake Bay restoration activates. 

Adaptive management relies on rigorous scientific monitoring, testing and evaluating; and the flexibility to modify management policies and strategies based on 

changing conditions. 

The bill also requires EPA to appoint an Independent Evaluator (IE) to review 

and report on restoration activities, implementation of adaptive management, and 

other topics suggested by the Chesapeake Executive Council. The IE will report 

findings and recommendations to Congress every three years. 

Crosscut budgeting, adaptive management and an Independent Evaluator should 

be key components for the complex restoration activity in the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act is common sense legislation, broadly supported throughout the watershed. During the 111th Congress, the 

House of Representatives passed H.R. 1053, identical legislation by a vote of 418– 

1. Currently, the bill is supported by a bipartisan group of Members of Congress 

across the Bay watershed. Outside organizations, including Ducks Unlimited, the 

Virginia Seafood Council and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also support the legislation. Additionally, the National Taxpayer Union identified H.R. 258 as the 

‘‘Least Expensive Bill of the Week’’ for March 2, 2011. 

Thanks again for holding this hearing and I look forward to continuing working 

with you and the Committee to restore the Chesapeake Bay. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman from Virginia and certainly 

appreciate his passion for this issue. It is very obvious that you are 

well read, sir, and well studied this, and that is a credit to your 

state, to your district. I think we will now hear from our first panel 

which is comprised of two of our distinguished colleagues, The Honorable Walter B. Jones of North Carolina and The Honorable Gregg 

Harper of Mississippi. Gentlemen, welcome to the Walter B. Jones 

Hearing Room. Like all witnesses, your written testimony will appear in the full hearing record so I ask that you keep your oral 

statement to five minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you 

and under Committee Rule 4[a]. Our microphones are not automatic so please press the button when you are ready to begin. Let 

us see. OK. With that, I recognize Congressman Jones for five minutes, sir. 

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

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Ranking 

Member and the Members of the Committee for this opportunity to 

discuss H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horse Protection Act. This bill 

would provide for a new management plan for the free-roaming 

Corolla wild horses of North Carolina’s Outer Banks. These Corolla 

horses can be traced back to the arrival of Spanish explorers on the 

Outer Banks in the 16th Century. These horses survived in the 

wild for over four centuries and currently roam across 7,500 acres 

of public and private land in coastal Currituck County, North 

7 

Carolina. Unfortunately, under the existing management agreement between the Interior Department, the State of North Carolina, Currituck County and the nonprofit Corolla Wild Horse Fund, 

the maximum number of horses allowed in the herd is 60. Leading 

equine genetic scientists believe that the number 60 threatens the 

herd’s existence due to high levels of inbreeding and low levels of 

genetic diversity. To address this issue, H.R. 306 would require the 

parties to the agreement to craft a new management plan to allow 

a herd of no less than 110 horses with a target of 120 to 130 

horses. That is the minimum number that renowned equine genetic 

scientist Dr. Gus Cothran of Texas A&M University has found to 

be necessary to maintain the herd’s genetic viability. It is important to note that these numbers are well within the care and capacity of the land these horses call home and to increase the herd’s 

genetic diversity the bill would, under limited circumstances, allow 

for the introduction of a small number of free-roaming wild horses 

from the related herd at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

H.R. 306 is similar to a bill I authored to save the wild horses of 

Shackleford Banks in Cape Lookout National Seashore. That legislation, H.R. 765, which was signed into law by President Bill 

Clinton in 1998, has provided a successful framework for a public/ 

private partnership to manage the Shackleford horses. I am grateful to President Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, for his 

help in moving that legislation. Mr. Bowles, who just left his position as President of the University of North Carolina’s system and 

was co-chair of President Obama’s Debt Commission, is also a 

strong supporter of this bill, H.R. 306. Mr. Chairman, I would like 

to read a passage from a letter to the Committee in support of this 

bill from North Carolina State Senator Stan White. He states, ‘‘In 

2010, the North Carolina General Assembly designated the 

Colonial Spanish Mustangs as the North Carolina state horse. It 

was done to show how important these horses are to our culture, 

their value to our economy and our commitment to their welfare. 

However, this designation cannot do its job without a solid management plan that clarifies what is necessary for these horses to 

thrive. H.R. 306 would allow for the best management of the herd 

according to what has been scientifically determined to be necessary for their health and long-term survival.’’ Joining Senator 

White in his support for H.R. 306 are the Humane Society, North 

Carolina’s Governor Bev Perdue, Currituck County, the Animal 

Welfare Institute, the Foundation for Shackleford Horses, Saving 

America’s Mustangs, American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign 

and Equus Survival Trust. I would like to ask unanimous consent 

for letters of support be included for the record. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman asks for unanimous consent. If 

there are no objections, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Walter B. Jones, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of North Carolina, on H.R. 306, Corolla Wild Horses 

Protection Act 

Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan, thank you for this hearing on 

H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act. The bill would provide for a new 

management plan for the free-roaming Corolla wild horses in and around the 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The linVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:03 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65625.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
8 

eage of the Corolla horses can be traced back to the arrival of Spanish explorers 

on the Outer Banks in the 16th century. These beautiful creatures have survived 

in the wild for over four centuries. They currently roam across over 7,500 acres of 

public and private land in coastal Currituck County, North Carolina. 

Unfortunately, under the existing management agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior, the State of North Carolina, the County of Currituck and 

the non-profit Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the maximum number of horses allowed in 

the herd is 60. Leading equine geneticists believe that the number 60 poses an immediate threat to the herd’s existence due to high levels of inbreeding and low levels 

of genetic diversity in the herd. To address this issue, the bill would require the 

parties to the agreement to craft a new herd management plan that would allow 

for a herd of no less than 110 horses, with a target population of between 120 and 

130 horses. That is the minimum number of horses that renowned equine geneticist 

Dr. Gus Cothran of Texas A&M University has found to be necessary to maintain 

the herd’s genetic viability. It’s important to note that these numbers are well within the carrying capacity of the land these horses call home. And to increase the 

herd’s genetic diversity, the bill would also under limited circumstances allow for 

introduction of a small number of free-roaming wild horses from the related herd 

at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

This bill is similar to one I authored to protect the wild horses of Shackleford 

Banks in the Cape Lookout National Seashore. That legislation—H.R. 765—which 

was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, has provided a successful 

statutory framework for a public-private partnership to manage the Shackleford 

horses. I am grateful to President Clinton’s Chief of Staff at that time—Erskine 

Bowles—for his assistance in moving that legislation. Mr. Bowles, who just stepped 

down as President of the University of North Carolina System and co-Chaired President Obama’s Debt Commission, is also a strong supporter of this bill, H.R. 306. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a letter to the Committee supporting 

H.R. 306 from North Carolina State Senator Stan White, who represents Currituck 

County in the State Senate. He states: ‘‘In 2010, the North Carolina General Assembly designated the Colonial Spanish Mustang as the North Carolina State Horse. 

It was done to show how important these horses are to our culture, their value to 

our economy, and our commitment to their welfare. However, this designation cannot do its job without a solid management plan that clarifies what is necessary for 

these horses to thrive. H.R. 306 would allow for the best management of the herd 

according to what has been scientifically determined to be necessary for their health 

and long-term survival.’’ 

Joining Senator White in supporting H.R. 306 are the Humane Society, North 

Carolina Governor Bev Perdue, Currituck County, the Animal Welfare Institute, 

The Foundation for Shackleford Horses, Saving America’s Mustangs, American Wild 

Horse Preservation Campaign, and Equus Survival Trust. I would like to ask unanimous consent for letters of support from these individuals and organizations to be 

included for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, again thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 306. It is a legislative fix based on sound science, and I urge the Subcommittee to support it. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, before I close I would like to point to 

my right and my left these beautiful horses on the shore in 

Currituck County. they are majestic, they again are traced back to 

the Spanish Mustangs. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I 

want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 306. 

Thank you, sir. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the distinguished gentleman from North 

Carolina for your testimony. Now we will turn to the distinguished 

gentleman from Mississippi. Sir, you have five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREGG HARPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member 

Sablan and distinguished Subcommittee Members. Thank you for 

this opportunity to come and testify regarding H.R. 588, legislation 

that I introduced to redesignate the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. 

9 

This bill is a companion piece to S. 266 introduced by Senator 

Thad Cochran which passed the Senate on February 17, 2011. It 

is my understanding there are no differences between S. 266 and 

this bill. H.R. 588 honors Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, a lifetime conservationist and a great man who served more than 30 years at the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, ultimately rising to the position of Director in December of 2009. 

As the panel is aware, the Refuge System was created in 1903 

and has 548 national wildlife refuges and wetland management 

districts that are home to some 700 species of birds, 220 mammals 

and 280 threatened or endangered species. The Noxubee National 

Wildlife Refuge is located in East Central Mississippi. It was established in 1940 and consists of 48,000 acres inhabited by a variety 

of game and nongame fish and wildlife, including quail, deer, turkey, an endangered woodpecker, wood stork, American alligator, 

bald eagle and wintering waterfowl. Approximately 170,000 people 

visit the refuge annually and enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking and 

other outdoor and educational activities. 

Mr. Hamilton has a long and personal history with the refuge. 

A native of Starkville, Mississippi, he recalled during his confirmation hearing testimony that he caught his very first fish at the 

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge at the age of five and began his 

conservation career there as an employee at the age of 15. Sam 

called the Refuge System the finest collection of public lands and 

waters dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation in the world. 

Upon graduation from Mississippi State University, Sam started a 

30-year career at the Fish and Wildlife Service. He worked in service field offices and Washington, D.C. headquarters, served extended details to the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and was 

a special assistant in the director’s office. 

He was selected to be the Fish and Wildlife Service’s first state 

administrator in Austin, Texas, to work with state and local governments and private landowners on statewide conservation issues, 

and he served as the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regional Director 

for the Southeast Region. On September 1, 2009, Sam D. Hamilton 

was sworn in as the fifteenth director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Sam passed away on February 20, 2010. Honoring Sam by 

renaming the refuge would be a tribute to his remarkable career 

and commitment to conservation. The National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation recently provided a $100,000 grant to the friends of 

Noxubee Refuge that will fund new signs and capital improvements 

for the refuge, as well as a scholarship and education funding in 

honor of Sam. This grant will allow the name change to occur without the Federal Government incurring those costs. I would like now 

to ask for unanimous consent to submit a letter for the record from 

the ex-National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Executive Director, 

Jeff Trandahl, which outlines this grant. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman asks for unanimous consent. If 

there are no objections, so ordered. 

[NOTE: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation letter 

submitted for the record can be found at the end of Mr. Harper’s 

prepared statement.] 

10 

Mr. HARPER. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify before you today regarding H.R. 588. I look forward to 

working with you to ensure this legislation is signed into law to remember a man who truly devoted his life and career to the ideals 

formed during his early days at the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. I thank you and welcome any questions that the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harper follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Gregg Harper, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Mississippi, on H.R. 588 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 588, legislation I introduced to redesignate the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. This bill is a companion piece to S. 266, 

introduced by Senator Thad Cochran, which passed the Senate on February 17, 

2011. H.R. 588 honors Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, a lifetime conservationist and a great 

man who spent 30 years at the Fish and Wildlife Service, ultimately rising to Director in 2009. 

As this panel is aware, The Refuge System was created in 1903 and has 548 national wildlife refuges and 37 wetland management districts that are home to some 

700 species of birds, 220 mammals, and 280 threatened or endangered species. 

The Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge is located in east-central Mississippi. It 

was established in 1940 and consists of 48,000 acres inhabited by a variety of game 

and non-game fish and wildlife including quail, deer, turkey, the endangered redcockaded woodpecker, wood stork, American alligator, bald eagle and wintering waterfowl. Approximately 170,000 people visit the Refuge annually and enjoy hunting, 

fishing, hiking and other outdoor and educational activities. 

Mr. Hamilton has a long and personal history with the Refuge. A native of 

Starkville, Mississippi, he recalled during his confirmation hearing testimony—he 

caught his first fish at the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge at age 5 and began 

his conservation career there as an employee at age 15. Sam called the Refuge System the ‘‘finest collection of public lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife 

conservation in the world.’’ 

Upon graduation from Mississippi State University, Sam started a 30-year career 

at the Fish and Wildlife Service. He worked in Service field offices and Washington, 

D.C. headquarters, served extended details to the House Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries Committee and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and was a 

special assistant in the Director’s office. He was selected to be the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s first state administrator in Austin, Texas to work with state and local governments and private landowners on statewide conservation issues and he served 

as the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regional Director for the Southeast Region. On 

September 1, 2009, Sam D. Hamilton was sworn-in as the 15th Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Sam passed away on February 20, 2010. Honoring Sam by renaming the Refuge 

would be a tribute to his remarkable career and commitment to conservation. The 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation recently provided a $100,000 grant to the 

Friends of Noxubee Refuge that will fund new signs and capital improvements for 

the Refuge, as well as scholarship and education funding in honor of Sam. This 

grant will allow the name change to occur without the federal government incurring 

these costs. I would like to submit a letter for the record from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation Executive Director, Jeff Trandahl, which outlines this 

grant. 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding H.R. 588. 

I look forward to working with you to ensure this legislation is signed into law to 

remember a man who devoted his life and career to the ideals formed during his 

early days at the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Thank you, and I welcome any 

questions the committee may have. 

[The letter from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

submitted for the record by Mr. Harper follows:] 

11 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the distinguished witnesses and excellent 

testimonies of my colleagues and friends this morning. As is our 

tradition, we do not normally have a round of questions for our colleagues; however, I will open the table up for any specific questions 

that Members may have. If not, then our distinguished witnesses 

are excused. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. I am sorry. Do we have one? I am sorry. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to state 

that I am in support of all of these bills, in particular, H.R. 306 

authored by Mr. Jones. I am very much in favor of horses and very 

interested in their well-being. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, ma’am. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady from Guam. No further 

questions? Then our witnesses are excused. Thank you for your 


65625.001.eps
12 

time and service. We will ask the second panel of witnesses to 

move forward. OK. It appears that our second panel is well-positioned so we will move forward. We are now ready for our second 

panel. This panel includes Mr. Greg Siekaniec, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Assistant Director for the National Wildlife Refuge System; Dr. Roger Mann, Professor of Marine Science at the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science; Dr. Michael Hutchins, Executive Director of the Wildlife Society; and Ms. Karen McCalpin, Executive Director of the Corolla Wild Horse Fund. So of course the 

procedure here is you have five minutes each. We ask you to keep 

your remarks within the five minute window. When you see the 

yellow light, that means you have one minute left, and try to conclude, of course, your comments at the end of the five minute period. So I would like to first recognize Mr. Siekaniec. Five minutes, 

sir. 

STATEMENT OF GREG SIEKANIEC, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking 

Member Sablan and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Greg Siekaniec, presently the Acting Deputy Director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to present the Department’s testimony on 

H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horse Protection Act, and H.R. 588 and 

S. 266, bills that would rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge after our late director, Sam D. Hamilton. As outlined more 

fully in my written statement, the Department opposes passage of 

H.R. 306 and supports passage of H.R. 588. H.R. 306 would require the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement to 

provide for management of horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

The bill mandates a herd of not less than 110 horses in and 

around the refuge and severely limits the Service’s ability to manage these horses. Currituck National Wildlife Refuge was established to protect and preserve migratory birds and other wildlife resources. Native species that depend upon this coastal barrier island 

ecosystem include waterfowl, wading birds, shore birds, raptors, 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians and a variety of plants. The refuge 

provides habitat for endangered species such as piping plover and 

sea turtles. The Service views wild horses as feral domestic animals. On the refuge, horses compete with native wildlife species for 

resources and often negatively impact habitat. For example, horses 

trample and consume plants, removing food and shelter for native 

species. Horses are also known to facilitate the introduction of 

invasive weeds. 

H.R. 306 would weaken the Service’s ability to accomplish the 

refuge’s purposes. Under the bill, the Service will no longer be able 

to place its highest management priorities at the refuge on migratory bird management or endangered species protection. The bill 

also limits the Service’s management discretion on the refuge by 

restricting our ability to close areas, remove horses or provide grazing opportunities beneficial to wildlife within enclosed areas. The 

Service also questions whether the area can sustain 110 or more 

13 

horses. This concern is heightened by ongoing development of private land which continues to diminish the quantity of suitable 

habitat outside the refuge. Maintaining a horse herd may eventually prevent us from fulfilling the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. Last, we view H.R. 309 as unnecessary because 

there is already a successful horse management plan in place. The 

current version of the Currituck Outer Banks Wild Horse Management Plan was reviewed and approved in partnership with the 

Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of Currituck and the North 

Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve in 2007. For these 

reasons, the Department opposes passage of H.R. 306. 

H.R. 588 and S. 266 would rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. We greatly appreciate Representative Harper’s and Senator 

Cochran’s efforts to honor our late director with these bills. I would 

like to say a few words about Sam, if I may. Sam’s vision and commitment to wildlife conservation were extraordinary, as you have 

already heard. He was passionate about conservation of natural resources and about the Service’s mission. He held a deep appreciation for the work done by each employee of the Service. Sam 

worked for over 30 years on a wide variety of positions that 

spanned field work in the marshes of Mississippi to policy work in 

the headquarters office in Washington, D.C. 

He served for many years as the Southeast Regional Director before being nominated and confirmed as the Service’s Director in 

2009. Sam’s tenure as director, though brief, was guided by his 

strongly held belief that no single entity, whether Federal, state or 

private, can ensure the sustainability of the nation’s fish and wildlife resources working independently. He worked toward building 

collaborative partnerships to develop bold ideas and solutions to 

the challenges facing the nation’s wildlife. His views and approaches toward conservation resonate deeply within the Service to 

this day. With regards to Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, there 

is no doubt that Sam had a special place in his heart for this refuge. He grew up close to the refuge in Starkville, Mississippi. 

He caught his first fish there with his father at age of five. Sam 

began his career in conservation with the Youth Conservation 

Corps at Noxubee Refuge. Although it is generally the policy of the 

Service not to recommend name changes after individuals, in recognition of Sam’s contributions, we are all honored that Congress 

is actually considering honoring one of our own in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Department supports H.R. 588 and 

S. 266. In closing, the Administration appreciates the Subcommittee’s continued leadership and support for the conservation of the 

nation’s wildlife and our National Wildlife Refuge System. I thank 

you for the opportunity to be here and testify today. I would be 

happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Siekaniec follows:] 

Statement of Greg Siekaniec, Acting Deputy Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Greg Siekaniec, Acting Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), within the Department of the Interior (Department). 

14 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to testify 

on two bills of interest to the Service: H.R. 306 the Corolla Wild Horses Protection 

Act and H.R. 588, a bill to rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge the Sam 

D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee’s continued leadership and support for the conservation of the nation’s 

wildlife and our National Wildlife Refuge System. 

As outlined below, the Department opposes passage of H.R. 306 and supports 

passage of H.R. 588. 

H.R. 306, THE COROLLA WILD HORSES PROTECTION ACT 

H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act, would require the Secretary of 

the Interior to provide for management of horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. As discussed below, the Administration opposes this legislation. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1984 and is located on the 

northern end of North Carolina’s Outer Banks. The refuge was established to preserve and protect the coastal barrier island ecosystem, and refuge lands are managed to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl and to protect endangered species 

such as piping plover, sea turtles, and sea beach amaranth. Various types of wading 

birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians common 

to the eastern United States, are found on the refuge. The refuge consists of six separate units all located between Corolla, North Carolina, and the state boundary between North Carolina and Virginia. 

H.R. 306, the ‘‘Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act,’’ would require the Secretary 

of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, a local 

nonprofit corporation, the County of Currituck, and the State of North Carolina to 

provide for management of horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife 

Refuge. This mandated agreement must allow a herd of not less than 110 horses 

in and around the refuge, provide for management of the horses, and provide for 

the introduction of a small number of horses from Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

as necessary, to maintain genetic viability of the herd. Additionally, the bill provides 

no funding for management of horses on the refuge. 

H.R. 306 precludes the Secretary from excluding horses from any portion of the 

refuge unless a finding is made that the presence of horses on a portion of the refuge threatens the survival of an endangered species for which such land is designated as critical habitat, the finding is based on a credible peer-reviewed scientific 

assessment, and the Secretary provides a period of public notice and comment on 

that finding. 

The Department has significant concerns with H.R. 306, and opposes its passage. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge was established to manage for specific trust 

wildlife species including waterfowl, migratory birds, and endangered species. The 

Service views wild horses, as defined in 50 CFR 30.11(a), as feral domestic animals. 

On Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, horses compete with native wildlife for limited resources and horses negatively impact habitat. H.R. 306 would subrogate the 

refuge’s purposes as the Service will no longer be able to place its highest priority 

on managing wildlife such as migratory birds and endangered species. The bill fails 

to consider the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which was created with 

public involvement, and it overrides the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

H.R. 306 would limit the Service’s management discretion on the refuge by restricting our ability to close areas, remove horses, or provide grazing opportunities 

beneficial to wildlife within enclosed areas. For example, research is currently 

underway to assess the impacts of deer, pigs, and horses to refuge habitats. Such 

research requires excluding these species from areas to determine the extent of their 

impacts. H.R. 306 would compromise this study by precluding closure of these areas 

to horses, and eliminate future habitat impact research needed to meet the 

objectives for which the refuge was established. The requirement to show the presence of horses on a portion of the refuge threatens the survival of an endangered 

species—based on a peer-reviewed scientific assessment involving a public comment 

period—will require time and substantial resources that are currently not available 

at the refuge. The refuge has over 400 native wildlife species it is responsible for 

monitoring and sustaining with five staff stationed at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. Requiring this level of intensive management for one feral species cuts 

into staff capacity for maintaining the native species for which the refuge was established. 

The bill mandates maintaining a herd of not less than 110 free-roaming wild 

horses in and around the refuge, with a target population of between 120 and 130 

free-roaming wild horses. The current Currituck Outer Banks Wild Horse ManageVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:03 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65625.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
15 

ment Plan provides for a maximum of 60 horses, with the population controlled 

through adoption, relocation, or contraceptive fertility methods. Sustaining a herd 

of 110 or more horses concerns us. We are also concerned that development of private land continues to erode the quantity of suitable habitat outside the refuge and 

this trend could cause future horse populations to be even more reliant on the refuge, thus further cutting into a habitat base intended for native wildlife. 

Lastly, the Department views H.R. 306 as unnecessary because there is already 

a horse management plan in place. The current version of the Currituck Outer 

Banks Wild Horse Management Plan was reviewed and approved in partnership 

with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of Currituck, and the NC National 

Estuarine Research Reserve in 2007. The purpose of this plan is to provide guidelines and general management objectives for managing the Currituck Outer Banks 

horses. The management plan provides management flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in the area. This flexibility is now paramount as plans to construct a mid-Currituck bridge are moving forward. This bridge will significantly increase the rate of development and the amount of vehicular traffic, changing available habitats for both horses and native wildlife to some, currently unknown, extent. 

Refuge management plans have been updated to reflect the presence of horses on 

the refuge property and their use. Plans address the need to monitor horse impacts, 

make management decisions based upon sound wildlife management practices to 

protect critical resources, and to work with partners to protect these resources. 

Accordingly, the Department opposes passage of H.R. 306, the ‘‘Corolla Wild 

Horses Protection Act.’’ 

H.R. 588 AND S. 266, BILLS TO RENAME NOXUBEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

H.R. 588 would rename the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. We greatly appreciate Representative Harper’s efforts to honor our late Director with this bill, and appreciate the similar efforts of Senator Cochran. Although it is generally the policy of the Service not to 

name refuges after individuals, in recognition of Sam’s contributions, the Department supports H.R. 588 and the Senate’s unanimous passage of the Senate companion legislation, S. 266, earlier this year and urges the House of Representatives 

to take the same action. 

Last year, the conservation community lost one of its most dynamic leaders with 

the passing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Sam D. Hamilton, III. Sam’s 

vision and commitment to wildlife conservation were extraordinary. His passion for 

conservation and the Service’s mission, along with his deep appreciation for the 

work done by each employee of the Service, are his legacy. 

Sam grew up in Starkville, Mississippi, and not long before his passing he recalled catching his first fish with his father at the age of five at nearby Noxubee 

National Wildlife Refuge. Sam began his career in conservation with the Youth Conservation Corps at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, and he had a special place 

in his heart for this refuge. Sam later joined the Service and worked in a number 

of field offices doing on the ground conservation in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, 

Georgia and two stints in Washington. Prior to his confirmation in 2009, Sam 

served as the Southeast Regional Director. There he spearheaded a renewed commitment to the Region’s national wildlife refuges—public lands that provide a multitude of benefits to wildlife and people—and its national fish hatcheries, which play 

a key role in managing the Nation’s fisheries and aquatic resources. 

After working for the Service for more than 30 years, Sam was nominated to lead 

the agency as its Director. Sam’s tenure as Director, while brief, was guided by his 

strongly held belief that no single entity, whether Federal, State, or private, can ensure the sustainability of the nation’s fish and wildlife resources working independently. He worked toward building collaborative partnerships to develop bold ideas 

and solutions to the challenges facing the nation’s wildlife. 

In general, Service policy establishes criteria for naming a refuge and states that 

first preference is given to a geographic or geologic feature that is tied to the identity of the refuge. If there is no such significant feature, then the refuge may be 

named after a wildlife, fish, or plant species. The policy specifically states that a 

refuge should not be named after any individual, although buildings, trails, and 

other facilities within the refuge may be named after an individual who played a 

significant role in the establishment or operation of the refuge. 

The policy was adopted because the Service recognizes that most places have existing names that reflect the natural characteristics and history of the landscape. 

Many existing names have significant cultural meaning to local communities. The 

Service’s stewardship of national wildlife refuges reflects a land ethic that recogVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:03 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65625.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

nizes local land forms and features. Our policy is meant to keep the natural places 

and wild creatures as the focus of our work. 

CONCLUSION 

The Service greatly appreciates your leadership, and the interest and efforts of 

the Subcommittee in supporting the conservation of the nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources and wildlife-dependent recreation. We look forward to working with Subcommittee members as you consider these bills and other legislation. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today and would be happy to answer any questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the witness. Next we have Dr. Roger 

Mann. Sir, you have five minutes. Again, when ready. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER MANN, PROFESSOR OF MARINE 

SCIENCE, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE 

Dr. MANN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here today in response to your invitation to provide testimony on H.R. 258, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act. My name is Roger Mann. I am a 

Professor of Marine Science and Director of Research and Advisory 

Services at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. I have been 

a researcher examining natural ecosystems and their management 

for both ecological services and the provision of sustained harvest 

for 35 years, the last 25 of those in the Chesapeake Bay with particular emphasis on oyster restoration. The comments that I 

present today represent not just my own, but those of a strong consensus of colleagues who I polled in preparing this testimony. 

Collectively, their expertise represents several hundred person 

years of direct experience in Chesapeake Bay science, management 

and policy. In my short statements I wish to highlight three points. 

Adaptive management. The words are in the bill. Adaptive management is a dynamic and responsive process that includes stakeholder participation, setting of goals, monitoring, modeling, experimentation, research, continual reevaluation with modification of 

end points. It is an iterative, dynamic process, it is not static. You 

have to move toward the goal by the methods possible. With respect to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, the required dynamic and responsive process would be much improved by reengagement of the science community. This is a common answer 

when I ask my colleagues what can we do? They say we need to 

be reengaged, we need to be better engaged. 

Finally, constructive peer-review is the backbone of science. It is 

the backbone of the National Science Foundation, it is the backbone of all science. Appointment of an independent evaluator, and 

this is not a new idea here, for Bay restoration is essential if we 

are only going to have the very best science guiding how we get the 

best with the limited amount of funds that we have available in 

these difficult economic times. The need to restore and maintain 

the Bay was formalized in 1983 as a partnership between the Federal Government and the Bay partners with, ‘‘this is an ongoing 

commitment to share responsibility for management decisions and 

resources regarding the high priority issues of the Chesapeake 

Bay’’. How do we maximize progress toward restoration goals? We 

do it, again, through a responsive dynamic process. 

In the early days of the Bay program this was realized by an action committee of scientific involvement, a robust scientific techVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:03 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\65625.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
17 

nical and advisory committee, researchers and a small, but efficient, Chesapeake Bay program whose directive was to support the 

staff. Again, reengagement. We need to go back to this base clean, 

mean model. The baseline of environmental challenges is not moving in the Bay because it is not only stressed by population growth, 

but also by sea level rise and climate changes. The baseline moves, 

you must move with it. Restoration goals must therefore be responsive. In practically all applied economic, social, engineering and scientific endeavors, the current approach is to employ numerical 

models. These both assimilate prior knowledge and they provide 

guidance. 

The Bay Monitoring Program is extraordinarily rich in data sets 

that can allow us to do this. The challenge that presents itself to 

us at the moment in terms of where we go between the Bay program and the Bay scientific community is to do a better job of making the existing models work better. The TMVL one is a good example. It is about making these things work better and making 

them accurate and understandable to a nontechnical community 

that uses them. This is where we should be investing. The current 

generation of models is complex, but they are getting better and 

their costs are going down. One only has to look at the advances 

we have made in tide surge models over the last five to 10 years. 

We can predict to street level accuracy now with these models precisely what happened in Hurricane Isabelle. What a marvelous 

forecasting tool. 

We need to invest. We must not confuse activity with accomplishment. We need to refocus, when necessary. We need to incorporate 

new findings and engage new talent. It is an iterative process. 

H.R. 258 proposes appointment of an independent evaluator. 

Again, not a new idea. This is in the Executive Order, and when 

this subject was last here in testimony in June of 2009, this was 

also debated. Critical independent peer-review is the backbone of 

science. It is the key to restoring what we want to do and to do 

it with the most cost-efficient approach. The current Bay program 

has grown. It is large, it has complex infrastructure, and, in my 

opinion, is lacking in flexibility. 

If you reengage the scientific community, you will be able to 

make it more efficient. Again, the National Science Foundation 

does this all the time. The states, in both their academic institutions and their state agencies, are with reservoirs of enormous talent that can be engaged with short lead times and high cost efficiency because, in many instances, as these tasks emerge that tell 

us where to go, many of the infrastructures are already in place 

and the talent is already in place, we should take it. We should 

take advantage of this. Independent review by a proposed office of 

independent evaluator I think will just underscore these options 

and highlight these opportunities. We need to go there. 

In summary, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I applaud the goals of H.R. 258 by developing 

a crosscutting budget. In these times of extraordinary debates 

about where our national budget is going, this is absolutely critical. 

We need it as a tool to evaluate progress, and we need to appoint 

an independent evaluator. This is long overdue. The challenges remain significant, but I think with a concerted effort to reengage the 

18 

science community and use these state-of-the-art and proactive 

modeling tools as drivers, these do work and adopt a more flexible 

dynamic approach. We can make progress. We can make a lot of 

progress. Let us proceed. Thank you. This completes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mann follows:] 

Statement of Professor Roger Mann, Director for Research and Advisory 

Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and 

Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, on H.R. 258. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here today in 

response to your invitation to provide testimony on H.R. 258: the Chesapeake Bay 

Accountability and Recovery Act of 2011. 

My name is Roger Mann. I am a Professor of Marine Science and Director for Research and Advisory Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. I have been a researcher examining natural ecosystems and their 

management for both ecological services and sustained harvest of commercially valuable products for thirty five years. For the past twenty five I have been active in 

fisheries resource management and restoration in the Chesapeake Bay, in particular 

in the field of oyster restoration. The comments that I present today represent not 

just my own, but a strong consensus of colleagues with whom I have discussed this 

important bill. Collectively, their expertise amounts to several hundred person years 

of direct experience in Chesapeake Bay science, management, and policy. 

In my testimony today I wish to highlight three statements: 

1. Adaptive management is a dynamic and responsive process that includes 

stakeholder participation, setting of goals, monitoring, modeling, experimentation, research, and continual re-evaluation with modification of end points 

and goals as directed by this iterative process. 

2. With respect to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, the required dynamic 

and responsive process would be much improved by a fresh re-engagment of 

the science community. 

3. Constructive peer review is the backbone of science. Appointment of an Independent Evaluator for bay restoration is essential to insure that only the 

very best science guides these actions. 

The Chesapeake Bay has been described as a National Treasure—a description 

with which I wholeheartedly agree. The largest estuary in the continental United 

States, the bay watershed includes over 100,000 streams, 150 major rivers, and 

11,500 miles of shoreline in a 64,000 square mile footprint in the states of New 

York, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and 

Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The bay watershed is also home to 

approxmately 15,000,000 people and an ecosystem under significant stress. Over 4.4 

million acres have been developed, at least half of that in the past fifty years. Agricultural, urban and industrial development have inevitable impacts on receiving 

waters. Direct expolitation of living resources and modification of bay shorelines to 

shipping channels have lasting signatures. 

The need to restore and maintain the Chesapeake Bay has long been recognized 

and enjoys wide public support. Formalized through the 1983 Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement and susbequent instruments, the bay partners (the federal government, 

represented by the Environmental Protection Agency, joined the State of Maryland, 

and the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia) commited to ‘‘share the responsibility for management decisions and resources 

regarding the high priority issues of the Chesapeake Bay.’’ This is an ongoing commitment. The task before us in these difficult economic times may be stated thus: 

‘‘How do we maximize progress towards restoration goals per dollar invested?’’ 

Maximizing progress in restoration requires a responsive, dynamic structure to 

support actions that lead to progress by the state partners. Progress in the early 

days of the Chesapeake Bay Program was realized by coordinated actions of external scientific involvement, a robust Scientific Technical Advisory Committee, Bay researchers, and a small but efficient Chesapeake Bay Program whose directive was 

to support the states. A return to this model requires re-engagement of the greater 

Bay scientific community in an open review process. 

The baseline of environmental challenges is moving as the Bay is stressed not 

only by population growth but also by sea level rise and climate change. Restoration 

goals and the means to attain them must be flexible in response. In practically all 

applied economic, social, engineering and scientific endeavors the current approach 

is to employ numerical models to evaluate current knowledge and guide project actions. Continuing revision of the goals and actions are expected as more information 

19 

emerges. The Bay monitoring programs have produced enormously rich data sets 

that can be used to assess progress to date and plan future action. The role of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Bay scientific community is to do a better job 

of making existing numerical models both more accurate and understandable to the 

non-technical Bay community who are also the stakeholders in the process. This can 

be achieved with appropriate resources. 

The current generation of numerical models is complex, but their development 

times and costs are decreasing while the output is increasingly sought for societal 

purposes—progress in tidal surge models associated with storm events provide a 

good example. Engaging a wide representation of the science community to build 

such proactive tools is tractable, but progress also requires a commitment to change 

what does not work, redefine acceptable outcomes if required, not confuse activity 

with accomplishment, refocus efforts outside of the original goals if new options 

emerge in the management process, incorporate new findings, and engage new talent where talent is needed. Bay restoration must be progressive science, not just 

progressive bureaucracy and policy. 

H.R. 258 proposes appointment of an Independent Evaluator. Critical, independent, open, constructive peer review is the backbone of scientific progress. Peer 

review is the key to achieving restoration goals and doing it with highest cost efficiency. The current Bay Program effort is large with complex infrastructure and 

lacking in flexibility. Re-engaging the scientific community in a flexible, dynamic approach to restoration actions will achieve better results. The states, in both academic institutions and the state agencies, are reservoirs of enormous talent that can 

be engaged with short lead times and high cost efficiency because in many instances 

the task specific talents and infrastructure already exist within those agencies. 

Independent review by the proposed Office of the Independent Evaluator will, I have 

no doubt, highlight these opportunities. 

In summary, I again thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony. I applaud the goals stated in H.R. 258 of developing a cross cutting budget 

as a tool to evaluate progress in Bay restoration activity and appoint an Independent Evaluator. The challenges are significant, but with a concerted effort to reengage the science community, use state of the art proactive modeling tools as drivers, and adopt a more flexible, dynamic and responsive operations structure these 

challenges can be met. Let us proceed. This completes my testimony. 

Mr. WITTMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Mann. We appreciate 

that, and we are going to move on next to Dr. Hutchins and remind 

you that the lighting system there starts off with five minutes, at 

the yellow light you are at one minute, and we would like for you 

as best you can to stay within those five minutes. So, Dr. Hutchins, 

thank you so much for joining us and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL HUTCHINS, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

Dr. HUTCHINS. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee 

Members, my name is Michael Hutchins and I am the Executive 

Director and CEO of the Wildlife Society. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horse Protection 

Act. Funded in 1937, the Wildlife Society is a nonprofit scientific 

and educational association representing over 10,000 professional 

wildlife biologists and managers. The Wildlife Society defines wildlife as living organisms that are not humans, domesticated animals 

or plants. Wild animals’ ancestors have never been domesticated or 

modified by selective breading, where as feral animals’ ancestors 

were once domesticated but are now free-roaming in the absence of 

human care. 

Coming from domesticated stock, the wild horses in America are 

actually feral, or not part of the native ecosystem. Although many 

nonextinct horse lineages have all been North American, today’s 

feral horses are not members of the same species as North 

20 

American fossil specimens. Invasive or non-native species are 

among the most widespread and serious threats to the integrity of 

native wildlife populations because they invade and degrade natural ecosystems. The feral horses that roam freely along the Atlantic Coast are examples of such species. They are iconic and much 

loved by some, but they compete with native species, damage habitats and require focused and sustained management. 

Herds of feral horses cause significant changes to barrier islands 

through trampling of soils and vegetation, selectively grazing palatable plants and altering the distribution of nutrients in the ecosystem. Overgrazing affects plant community dynamics and renders sensitive dunes and marshlands more vulnerable to erosion by 

severely reducing vegetative cover. Trampling of nesting sites has 

a direct impact on ground nesting birds, which are numerous on 

the offshore islands. These effects are of particular concern in the 

context of Currituck National Wildlife Refuge which was established in 1984 to preserve and protect coastal barrier island ecosystems. Refuge lands are managed to provide wintering habitat 

for waterfowl and to protect endangered species, such as piping 

plovers and sea turtles. 

Various types of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians are 

also found on the refuge. H.R. 306 puts the Service in the difficult 

position of being legislatively required to manage for the conservation of native wildlife and habitat on the one hand, and to support 

a non-native invasive species on the other. The Wildlife Society has 

several concerns with this legislation. First, although the current 

management plan calls for a maximum herd of 60, this has not 

been achieved since 2002. The 2010 count was 115 with the population on a clear upward trend. We are concerned that the herd 

will soon overshoot the legislation’s maximum population size of 

120. In addition, the effects of the current herd size on the refuge 

are not well-documented. 

Such a herd size should not be legislatively mandated until its 

effects on the area’s native wildlife and habitat are made clear. 

Second, it is not clear what cost-effective management means in 

Section 2 of the Act. Maintaining a stable population of feral horses 

will likely require a long-term combination of expensive fertility 

control and removal of excess horses. The cost of managing a nonnative species should not come at the expense of our native species. 

Finally, the legislation would place unnecessary restrictions on the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s ability to exclude feral horses from sections of the refuge. As written, the bill would only allow removals 

of feral horses that are threatening the survival of an endangered 

species for which such land is designated as critical habitat. 

Expert refuge staff trained in wildlife management and conservation should have the discretion to exclude horses from any area of 

the refuge when they are causing undesirable effects. Furthermore, 

the Act is unnecessary because there is already a horse management in place, as already pointed out. We strongly recommend that 

the herd be kept at the 60 horse maximum currently required by 

the existing management plan, thus minimizing the negative impacts on native wildlife and habitat. Ideally, feral horses should be 

removed from the refuge entirely to allow the native wildlife there 

to thrive. If this is not done, however, the areas from which feral 

21 

horses are excluded should be increased to include any sensitive 

habitats on the island. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and 

for considering the views of wildlife professionals. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you might have at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hutchins follows:] 

Statement of Michael Hutchins, Executive Director/CEO, 

The Wildlife Society on H.R. 306, H.R. 588, S. 266 and H.R. 285 

Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Natural Resources 

Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. My 

name is Michael Hutchins, and I am the Executive Director and CEO of The 

Wildlife Society. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding H.R. 306, the 

Corolla Wild Horse Protection Act. Founded in 1937, The Wildlife Society is a nonprofit scientific and educational association of over 10,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science 

and education. Our mission is to represent and serve the professional community 

of scientists, managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who work actively to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and its habitats worldwide. 

TWS seeks a world where people and wildlife co-exist, where biological diversity 

is maintained, and decisions affecting the management, use, and conservation of 

wildlife and their habitats are made after careful consideration of relevant scientific 

information and with the engagement and support of an informed and caring citizenry. TWS defines wildlife as living organisms that are not humans, domesticated 

animals, or plants. Wild animals’ ancestors have never been domesticated—modified 

by selective breeding—whereas feral animals’ ancestors were once domesticated but 

are now free-ranging in the absence of human care. The ‘‘wild’’ horses in America 

are actually feral and are not part of the native ecosystem. 

Invasive, or non-native, species are among the most widespread and serious 

threats to the integrity of native wildlife populations because of their potential to 

invade and degrade native ecosystems. These species present special challenges for 

wildlife managers because their impacts on the native biota are poorly understood 

by the general public, and many people erroneously regard them as a component 

of the natural ecosystem. Feral horses (Equus caballus) that roam freely along the 

Atlantic coast of the U.S. are examples of such species: they are iconic and muchloved by some, but damage wildlife habitat and require focused and sustainable 

management practices. 

Although many now-extinct horse lineages evolved in North America, today’s feral 

horses are not members of the same species as North American fossil specimens. 

Scientists consider these feral horses to be a recent and disruptive addition to North 

American ecology, rather than a native species. 

Herds of feral horses cause significant changes to barrier island environments. As 

large herbivores, they alter landscapes through trampling soils and vegetation, selectively grazing palatable plants, and altering the distribution of nutrients in the 

ecosystem. Specifically, grazing impacts the distribution and abundance of native 

plant species and affects plant community dynamics (Furbish and Albano 1994). It 

may alter net aboveground primary production and belowground biomass, produce 

a network of paths through sensitive systems, and affect plant regeneration (Turner 

1987). Trampling of nesting sites is a direct impact to birds. Indirect impacts to 

marsh faunal communities may also result, including shifts in bird, fish, and invertebrate assemblages and abundances as well as changes in interspecific interactions 

(Levin et al. 2002). 

The result of grazing impacts depends on the location of the grazing activity (i.e. 

intertidal versus upland), interspecific competition, and herbivory intensity (Furbish 

and Albano 1994). Overgrazing is a major concern on barrier islands, as it has been 

shown to degrade habitat and negatively impact sensitive dunes and marshlands by 

increasing susceptibility to erosion (Seliskar 2003, Keiper 1990). Marshes may also 

be made more vulnerable to erosion and storm damage if sediment accretion is impaired by reduced grass density (Turner 1987). 

The effects of overgrazing are of particular concern in the context of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 described the mission of the System as follows: the Mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:03 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65625.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
22 

life, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit 

of present and future generations of Americans. 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, located on the northern end of North Carolina’s Outer Banks, was established in 1984 to preserve and protect the coastal barrier island ecosystem. Refuge lands are managed to provide wintering habitat for 

waterfowl and to protect endangered species such as piping plover, sea turtles, and 

sea beach amaranth. Various types of wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors, 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians common to the eastern United States are found 

on the refuge. 

H.R. 306 would make it more difficult for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

manage the feral horses on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge and hamper the Refuge System’s mission. The legislation puts the Fish and Wildlife Service in the difficult position of being legislatively required to manage for the conservation of 

native wildlife and habitat on the one hand and to support a non-native invasive 

species on the other. 

The Wildlife Society has several concerns with the legislation. First, we note that 

although the current management plan calls for a maximum herd size of 60, this 

has not been achieved since 2002. The 2010 count was 115, with the horses on a 

clear upward trajectory. Since the Corolla Wild Horse Fund has been unable to 

manage to the previously required level of 60, we are concerned that the herd will 

soon overshoot the legislation’s maximum population size of 120. In addition, the effects of the current herd size of 115, on the refuge and elsewhere, are not documented. Such a herd size should not be legislatively mandated until its effects on 

the area’s native wildlife and habitat are clear. 

Second, it is not clear what ‘cost-effective’ management means in Section 2. Maintaining a stable population of feral horses, which can double in population every 

four years, will likely require a combination of fertility control measures and removal of excess horses for sale or adoption. The cost of managing a non-native species should not come at the expense of native species. In this case, Currituck Refuge 

is unstaffed and unfunded. We fear that the funds necessary to manage feral horses 

on Currituck Refuge will come from Mackay Island Refuge, where they could have 

been used to manage for native wildlife or improve hunting or other recreational 

opportunities for visitors. The Corolla area has a strong tradition of waterfowl hunting and related recreation, and we would hate to see this compromised for the sake 

of an invasive species. 

Finally, the legislation would place unnecessary restrictions on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s ability to exclude feral horses from sections of the refuge. As written, 

the bill would only allow removals when the feral horses are threatening the survival of an endangered species for which such land is designated as critical habitat, 

as documented by a peer-reviewed scientific assessment involving a public comment 

period. Such a process will require time and substantial resources that are currently 

not available at the refuge. Refuge staff, trained in wildlife management and conservation, should have the discretion to exclude horses from any area of the refuge 

when they are causing undesirable effects. This provision would also effectively 

eliminate the ability of refuge staff to conduct research on the impacts of feral 

horses on habitat and native species by excluding them from some areas and then 

comparing the vegetation structure and biological diversity between the exclosure 

area and areas where feral horses are permitted. 

The Corolla Wild Horses Act bill fails to consider the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan and overrides the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, it is unnecessary because there is already a horse management plan in place. The current 

version of the Currituck Wild Horse Management Plan was reviewed and approved 

in partnership with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of Currituck, and the 

NC National Estuarine Research Reserve in 2007. 

We strongly recommend that the herd be kept at the 60-horse maximum currently 

required by the Currituck Wild Horse Management Plan. The lower number of 

horses would decrease the effects on native wildlife and habitat. Occasionally bringing horses in from the Cape Lookout herd will allay any concerns about genetic 

diversity. Ideally, feral horses should be removed from the Refuge to allow the 

native wildlife there to thrive. If this is not done, the areas from which feral horses 

are excluded on the refuge should be increased to include any sensitive habitats. 

Feral horse inventories should be performed at sufficient intervals to quickly 

determine whether they are having adverse impacts and rapidly implement management actions to control and reduce ecological damage. We also support increased 

funding for scientifically defensible assessments of ecosystem conditions that are 

used to make decisions about feral horse management. Such assessments should 

consider the welfare of the feral horses, as well as the ability of the system to conVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:03 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65625.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23 

serve native plant and animal populations and provide ecosystem services—clean 

air, clean water, and carbon sequestration. 

Literature Cited 

Furbish, C.E. and M. Albano. 1994. Selective herbivory and plant community 

structure in a Mid-Atlantic salt marsh. Ecology 75(4): 1015–1022. 

Levin, P.S., J. Ellis, R. Petrik, and M.E. Hay. 2002. Indirect effects of feral horses 

on estuarine communities. Conservation Biology 16(4): 1364–1371. 

Keiper, R.R. 1990. Biology of large grazing mammals on the Virginia barrier islands. 

Virginia Journal of Science 41(4A): 352–363. 

Seliskar, D.M. 2003. The response of Ammophila breviligulata and Spartina patens 

(Poaceae) to grazing by feral horses on a dynamic Mid-Atlantic barrier island. 

American Journal of Botany 90(7): 1038–1044. 

Turner, M.G. 1987. Effects of grazing by feral horses, clipping, trampling, and 

burning on a Georgia salt marsh. Estuaries 10(10): 54–60. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hutchins. We appreciate, again, 

your testimony and we look forward to being able to ask a few 

questions. We are going to move on now to Ms. McCalpin. We 

thank you so much for joining us and want to remind you, too, 

again about our system here of five minutes. We look forward to 

your testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN McCALPIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COROLLA WILD HORSE FUND 

Ms. MCCALPIN. Thank you. Congressman Wittman, Congressman 

Sablan, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 306. The wild horses of North 

Carolina’s Currituck Outer Banks have survived nearly five centuries but they cannot survive the critically low herd number dictated by the current management plan, as well as a scientifically 

documented dangerous decline in genetic diversity. Spanish ships’ 

logs verify horses on the shores of North Carolina around 1520. In 

1926, there were 5,000 to 6,000 wild horses all up and down the 

Outer Banks. Today, the current herd of registered Colonial Spanish Mustangs has dwindled to 108. DNA testing completed in 1992, 

and again in 2008, by Dr. Gus Cothran of Texas, an expert on wild 

herds, show that the Corolla horses have less genetic diversity and 

have reached a genetic bottleneck. 

The Corolla wild horses live on approximately 7,500 acres north 

of Corolla, 2,500 acres of which is Currituck National Wildlife Refuge property. The remaining land is privately owned. A written 

management plan was created in 1997. The Fund requested at 

least 100 horses, but the Federal representatives’ position was zero. 

After a prolonged and contentious debate, the herd size was set at 

a maximum of 60, a number not based on any existing scientific 

data, but merely a number upon which all parties were finally able 

to agree. In April of 2008, the Fund staff formally requested that 

the herd size be changed to a target population of 120 to 130, the 

minimum number recommended by Dr. Cothran. The Fund also requested permission to introduce a small number of mares from 

Shackleford to add diversity to a dying gene pool. 

Our request was denied by Fish and Wildlife, citing competition 

for resources, although there is no existing scientific data to support their position. A 1997 impact study by Drs. Richard and Martha Rheinhardt covered over 11,000 acres from the northern end of 

Back Bay Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, south to Corolla. The results 

24 

showed that horses consumed few shrub species and grass species 

seemed to recover from grazing by early summer. No plants eaten 

by wild horses are included on the Federal threatened species list. 

When determining impact, we cannot overlook humans. Thousands 

of vehicles drive on the beach and behind the dunes daily. The 

fragile dunes are negatively impacted by climbing and driving on 

them. 

It is not the horses that leave trash, deep tire ruts, drop oil and 

other contaminants. Our herd manager maintains a database of 

the wild horses that is updated weekly. The 22 to 23 harems are 

evenly distributed over the 7,500 acres. Each harem stays in its 

own home region and generally remains there until the end of their 

life. July 22, 2010 photos taken outside the 135-acre refuge fence 

where 13 horses were forced out on March 12 of that year, and 

photos of the 16’-by-16’ exclosures show thick vegetation outside 

the fence. There is no evidence of overgrazing in these photos, even 

in last summer’s extreme drought conditions. The Corolla Wild 

Horse Fund is the NGO that physically manages and cares for the 

herd. 

We employ four full-time staff, five seasonal staff and utilize a 

pool of over 30 volunteers. We operate a year-round educational facility with 75,000 visitors annually. We are on call 24/7, 365 days 

a year. We rescue and rehabilitate sick and injured horses and 

have placed 38 horses in loving adoptive homes from Texas to 

Maine since September of 2006. We transport deceased horses to 

Raleigh for necropsy, assist in veterinary euthanizations in the 

field and maintain all barrier fences, including the cabled fence 

into the ocean. All expenses related to wild horse management are 

incurred by the Fund with no cost to the Federal Government, nor 

would the implementation of H.R. 306 create any additional management costs as long as the Fund continues to manage the herd. 

In the last year, we have worked cooperatively with Currituck 

County to create and implement several new ordinances to protect 

the horses, collected and tested water, soil and plant samples from 

all areas of the North Beach, distributed thousands of handouts regarding the wild horse ordinance and coordinated a campaign to 

designate the Colonial Spanish Mustang as the North Carolina 

state horse. The Fund holds 70 acres in a conservation easement 

and our website lists land donation as a method of helping to protect and preserve the wild horses. Our long-term goal is to hold significant acreage in conservation easements. For nearly 500 years, 

the wild horses of Corolla have persevered against all odds. 

I am always moved by their strength, intelligence, beauty and 

iron will to live. These sons and daughters of the sand carry a 

wealth of genetic history that is quickly, not slowly, dying. We are 

already seeing a decline in the number of healthy foals being born 

and an increasing number of horses with abnormalities. We are not 

asking for hundreds of horses, we are asking for 120 to 130, the 

number recommended by scientific data generated by an expert in 

the field, the same number that has existed on Federal property at 

Cape Lookout National Seashore for the last 12 years on half the 

land with no documented impact. Raising the allowable herd size 

alone will not solve the issue of our horses being too closely related 

to one another. Introduction of mares from the Shackleford herd is 

25 

the only way to breed new DNA into a gene pool headed for certain 

collapse. Like the wild horses, we are determined and we find 

strength in their presence. They are nobody’s horses, but they are 

everybody’s horses. I am honored to be their voice and ask you 

today to honor their history and protect their future. Please move 

H.R. 306 forward and save these endangered horses for future generations to view, admire and respect. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCalpin follows:] 

Statement of Karen H. McCalpin, Executive Director, 

Corolla Wild Horse Fund, Inc., Corolla, North Carolina. on H.R. 306 

Chairman Fleming and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Karen 

McCalpin and I am the Executive Director of the Corolla Wild Horse Fund. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses 

Protection Act. I speak on behalf of the citizens of Currituck County, North Carolina, the hundreds of thousands of annual visitors who travel to the Outer Banks 

specifically to view the number one tourist attraction—our wild horses, and most 

importantly, I speak for the wild horses who have recently been designated by the 

North Carolina legislature as the North Carolina state horse. I would also like to 

express my gratitude to Representative Walter Jones for sponsoring the bill as well 

as cosponsors Representatives Howard Coble, Gerry Connolly, David Price and Ed 

Whitfield. 

Background: 

Powerful, intelligent, breathtakingly beautiful, and determined to survive—the 

wild horses of North Carolina’s Currituck Outer Banks have survived nearly five 

centuries of fierce hurricanes, unrelenting nor’easters, severe droughts, floods, and 

swarms of biting insects. But can they survive the critically low herd number as defined in the current management plan as well as a scientifically documented dangerous decline in genetic diversity? 

Spanish ships’ logs verify horses being brought to the shores of North Carolina 

around 1520. Historians believe that some horses were able to survive shipwrecks 

and swam ashore. Horses were also among the heavy cargo shoved overboard in an 

attempt to refloat ships grounded on sand bars, and some were simply left behind 

when colonies failed. 

Recognized and registered as Colonial Spanish Mustangs in 2007 by the international Horse of the Americas Registry (HOA), the wild horses now roaming the 

northernmost Outer Banks have adapted to a very specialized diet of coarse salt 

grass, sea oats, panic grass, American beach grass, cordgrass, acorns and persimmons found in five main habitat areas. Areas of dune grass, dry grassland, wet 

grassland, tidal fresh water marsh, and maritime forest provide food and shelter. 

The Currituck Sound (a fresh water estuarine system) provides a constant source 

of water, as do numerous ponds, puddles, and manmade canals. 

According to a 1926 National Geographic magazine article entitled ‘‘Motor Coaching the Outer Banks,’’ there were five to six thousand wild horses on the 175 mile 

stretch that makes up the Outer Banks. Today, the current herd count has dwindled 

to 108. 

DNA testing completed in 1992 by Dr. E. Gus Cothran, an internationally recognized equine geneticist and expert on wild herds, showed that the Corolla horses 

have ‘‘less genetic diversity than any other group of horses.’’ In 2008, DNA samples 

were collected via remotely delivered dart for an updated study of the herd’s current 

overall genetic health. Dr. Cothran reported that the horses had now reached a ‘‘genetic bottleneck,’’ with high levels of inbreeding and low levels of genetic diversity. 

Further mitochondrial DNA analysis confirmed that the Corolla herd has only one 

maternal line, while the wild Colonial Spanish Mustangs on Shackleford Banks 

(Cape Lookout National Seashore) have four maternal lines. The wild horses on 

Shackleford Banks have been managed at a target population of 120—130 since the 

passage of the Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act in 1998. Dr. Cothran 

generally recommends a herd size of 120—130 as the minimum for a feral herd. 

The low Corolla herd size also presents an imminent danger to the survival of the 

horses that goes beyond high levels of inbreeding. When the number drops below 

the absolute minimum of 110, the herd is at extreme risk for being completely eradicated by a disease, drought, fire, flood, or hurricane. They could easily be gone forever. The Corolla horses are already listed as a critically endangered breed by the 

American Livestock Breed Conservancy and the Equus Survival Trust, national 

26 

nonprofit organizations that work to conserve rare breeds. The next category is extinction. 

Until 1985, the paved road (NC 12) came to an end at what is now the Sanderling 

Resort in Duck, North Carolina. Only 4 wheel drive vehicles could access the next 

25 miles to the North Carolina/Virginia border. A guard gate ensured that only the 

few permanent residents or their guests went any further. At that time, the wild 

horses had a territory encompassing nearly 13,000 acres. When the road from Duck 

to Corolla was paved in 1985, what was once a remote and rugged wild horse sanctuary with a handful of residents exploded with the development of thousands of 

vacation homes. 

By 1989, so many horses had been injured or killed on NC 12 and horse/human 

interactions had become so frequent, a group of concerned residents formed the all 

volunteer Corolla Wild Horse Fund (CWHF). Members of the Fund set out to find 

ways to protect the wild horses. After much time, effort, and tears, the twenty or 

so wild horses left in Corolla were rounded up in 1995 and moved to the only remaining area left with no paved roads. Referred to as the 4X4 beach or north beach, 

a sound to sea fence was built to keep the horses out of the populated areas of 

Corolla. A partial fence already existed near the North Carolina/Virginia border but 

had to be extended. Cattle guards were installed near the end of the paved road 

and at a gate along the northern fence. The cattle guards allow access by vehicles 

but not horses. The two fences are 11 miles apart. There were an unknown number 

of wild horses already inhabiting the north beach when the additional twenty were 

added. 

The wild horses that once called the entire 175 miles of this barrier island their 

home, now live on approximately 7,544.25 acres of the north beach. Of that, 

4,671.35 acres is privately owned by individuals and corporations; 2,495.4 is 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge property; 326.5 is the North Carolina National 

Estuarine Research Reserve; and 51 acres is owned by the nonprofit Nature Conservancy. There are over 1300 houses in the three developed subdivisions of Swan 

Beach, North Swan Beach, and Carova. People reach their houses and beach rentals 

by driving on the beach and over the dunes on sand cartways. (Attachment 1—Wild 

Horse Range Acreage map) 

Management Plan: 

A written management plan was created in 1997 by an advisory group (Currituck 

Outer Banks Wild Horse Advisory Board) consisting of representatives from the 

Corolla Wild Horse Fund (CWHF), United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve (NCNERR), and 

Currituck County as well as two county appointed citizen representatives who reside on the north beach. The CWHF requested a herd size of at least 100, in sharp 

contrast to the federal representatives’ position of zero. Even though the 1992 genetic study had already revealed low genetic diversity, the herd size was eventually 

set at a maximum of 60. This number was not selected based on any existing scientific data but was merely a number upon which all parties were able to agree 

after prolonged and contentious debate. 

I began my duties as the first fulltime Executive Director of the Fund on September 4, 2006. After reading the management plan and as a life-long horsewoman 

I was stunned to see such a low maximum herd size. The management plan was 

due to be reviewed and signed again by the end of the year. Although I immediately 

recognized that a wild herd of 60 was not viable, being so new to the position, I 

had no scientific data available to support a request for a larger herd number. However, because the plan reads, ‘‘This plan will be reviewed and updated at least on 

a five year cycle. All signatories recognize that any management plan is a living document and will change based upon current circumstances,’’ I felt that once I acquired data from a credible source, the management plan could be changed ‘‘based 

on current circumstances’’ and ‘‘that all signatories recognize that any management 

plan is a living document.’’ 

In April of 2008, the Fund staff formally requested that the maximum herd size 

be changed to the scientific number recommended by Dr. Cothran in relation to his 

DNA findings from the most recent DNA samples. The Fund also requested permission to introduce a small number of mares from Shackleford Banks to begin to restore diversity to the dying gene pool. USFWS and the NCNERR denied the request 

citing the potential for damage to the refuge and reserve as a result of a larger herd, 

although there is no existing scientific data to support their denial. The Fund was 

told to continue to permanently remove healthy horses for adoption and dart 

healthy breeding age mares with contraceptives to work toward a herd size of 60. 

(Corolla: 7,544.25 acres; 60 horses; Shackleford: 3,000 acres 120—130 horses) 

27 

I turned to Congressman Jones for assistance and he traveled to Corolla in October of 2008 to meet with the Currituck Outer Banks Wild Horse Advisory Board. 

At this meeting, USFWS verbally agreed to allow the herd to remain at the current 

level then (100) until a multi-year exclosure study funded by North Carolina State 

University and USFWS could be conducted and the data analyzed. They again denied our request to change the written management plan and to date it remains at 

a maximum herd size of 60. 

Impact: 

Before making my request for an increase in herd size, I spoke extensively with 

Dr. Sue Stuska, National Park Service Wildlife Biologist and Carolyn Mason, President of the nonprofit Foundation for Shackleford Horses. The Foundation, a small 

and unstaffed organization, works cooperatively through a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Park Service to manage the herd of wild Colonial Spanish Mustangs living on 3,000 acres of Shackleford Banks (an east/west island that 

is part of Cape Lookout National Seashore near Beaufort, NC.) These horses are 

managed in accordance with the Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act as 

previously mentioned. This Act was also sponsored by your colleague, Walter Jones. 

In 1997, their herd was in danger of complete eradication. Called a ‘‘disturbing 

precedent’’ at the time by the National Park Service, the 12 years since the passage 

of the Act into Public Law 105–229 have elapsed successfully. The herd is maintained at a target population of 120—130 and the day to day management of the 

horses is conducted by the National Park Service Wildlife Biologist, Dr. Sue Stuska. 

The population is controlled through the physical removal and adoption of horses 

most closely related to one another and the administration of the non-hormonal contraceptive, PZP. ‘‘The horses are thriving and the island’s ecology is holding its 

own.’’ (The Wild Horses of Shackleford Banks by Carmine Prioli, 2007.) (3,000 acres; 

120—130 horses) 

I also conducted extensive research on the management of other east coast wild 

horses as well as existing impact studies before making my request. The Chincoteague, VA ponies are owned by the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department and 

are grazed on two portions of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge under a 

Special Use Permit between USFWS and the Fire Department. These ponies are 

managed at a herd size of 150 by the Fire Department. They reduce the herd by 

holding an annual auction of foals. The Assateague herd (VA) is managed by the 

National Park Service and maintained at 150 as well. No information was available 

regarding the disposition of any horses physically removed from the National Park. 

The Journal of Range Management 57(3) May 2004 published a 1997 impact 

study by Drs. Richard D. Rheinhardt and Martha C. Rheinhardt titled ‘‘Feral horse 

seasonal habitat use on a coastal barrier spit.’’ The research was funded by 

NCNERR and an airplane was furnished by USFWS. The objective was to obtain 

information on the relative preference for forage species by season and the seasonal 

utilization of forage habitat by wild horses. The study area extended from the northern end of Back Bay Wildlife Refuge in Virginia to Corolla, bounded on the east by 

the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Currituck Sound. The entire study area 

encompassed 11,414 acres. Results: ‘‘Horses consume few forb species and graminoid 

species seem to recover from grazing by early summer when primary production is 

highest...Because rooting impacts of feral hogs may be more severe than horse grazing impacts on Currituck Banks, exclosure experiments would have to be designed 

to separate horse grazing from hog rooting.’’ 

The Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt study also included an extensive list of plants 

eaten by wild horses and no plants grazed are included on the federal threatened 

species list. The wild horses of the Currituck Outer Banks eat only native vegetation (they are not supplementally fed hay or grain) and then reseed it in their manure. 

Refuge Manager, Mike Hoff has pointed out that the endangered plant, seabeach 

amaranth has disappeared from the dunes and has suggested that the horses may 

be responsible for this. Research has shown that not only is the seabeach amaranth 

not eaten by the horses, the USFWS website states: ‘‘weather events, rainfall, hurricanes, temperature extremes and predation by webworms have strong effects on the 

length of the seabeach amaranth’s reproduction season...Seabeach amaranth appears to be intolerant of competition and does not occur on well vegetated 

sites. . .The most serious threats to the continued existence of seabeach amaranth 

include the construction of beach stabilization structures, beach erosion and tidal inundation, beach grooming, herbivory by insects and feral animals and, in certain circumstances, by off-road vehicles.’’ The north beach is directly affected by all of the 

above. 

28 

If we want to determine impact, we cannot overlook the animal that leaves the 

largest footprint of all—humans. On any given day in July, there can be 3,000 vehicles driving on the beach and behind the dunes. (Attachment 2—cars driving along 

refuge dune line) Every day, the fragile dunes are compromised by humans walking 

over them, using them for sliding boards, and driving over them in off road vehicles. 

(Attachment 3 people on refuge dunes) It is not the horses that leave behind plastic 

bags, beer bottles, plastic water bottles and other trash. It is not the horses’ trash 

near the shore bird nest. (Attachment 4—nesting shore bird on refuge and trash) 

It is not the horses that leave deep tire ruts in the sand, or drop oil and other contaminates on the beach. (Attachment 5—cement trucks stuck in front of refuge) 

Census: 

Before 2006, no official census records were found in CWHF archives. Beginning 

in 2006, aerial counts were conducted by the CWHF Herd Manager and the CNWR 

Manager. Attachment A (Wild Horse Range Acreage, Corolla, NC) shows the entire 

horse range with CNWR and NCNERR property delineated. 

• 2006—119 horses (CWHF Herd Manager, Steve Rogers; CNWR Manager, Tim 

Cooper) 

• 2007—94 (CWHF Herd Manager, Steve Rogers; CNWR Manager, Mike Hoff) 

26 horses on CNWR property; 68 on private property; 0 on NCNERR 

• 2008—101 (CWHF Herd Manager, Steve Rogers; CNWR Manager, Mike Hoff) 

23 horses on CNWR property; 74 on private property; 4 on NCNERR 

• 2009—88 (CWHF Herd Manager, Wesley Stallings; CNWR Manager, Mike 

Hoff) 0 horses on CNWR property; 84 on private property; 4 on 

NCNERR. 

• 2010—115 (CWHF Herd Manager Wesley Stallings; CNWR Manager, Mike 

Hoff) 35 horses on CNWR property; 71 on private property; 9 on NCNERR 

The CWHF Herd Manager maintains a data base of the wild horses with photos, 

descriptions of physical markings and colors; health status, and identification of 

home territory. It is updated at least weekly and we have purchased and been working cooperatively with Dr. Sue Stuska, NPS, Cape Lookout National Seashore, on 

utilizing WHIMS (Wild Horse Information Software). 

There are 22—23 harems (stallion and 1—4 mares) as well as groups of bachelor 

stallions evenly distributed over the 7,544 acres. Each harem stays in its own home 

region and generally remains there until the end of life. Straying from their home 

territory precipitates violent fighting between stallions and results in mares being 

stolen from their family group. 

The CNWR has two areas fenced with high tensile electric wire to exclude wild 

horses. One fence is located in Swan Beach and covers143 acres. An additional 135- 

acre fence was constructed in North Swan Beach in March of 2010. On March 12, 

2010 CWHF Herd Manager Wesley Stallings removed 13 wild horses from within 

the newly fenced area at the request of CNWR Manager, Mike Hoff. These 13 horses 

were then forced into the home territory of other existing harems and violent fighting occurred for days as dominant stallions fought over mares and attempted to 

drive the intruders from the home area. One pregnant mare from the group removed from inside the fence miscarried a foal that would have been born in about 

a month. Another mare, whose body condition was good when removed, had to be 

euthanized a month later after her body condition deteriorated dramatically. She 

was captured by CWHF and an aggressive but unsuccessful week long attempt was 

made to save her life. Attachment 6 (a mare from one of the removed harems waiting in vain to return to her home.) 

Attachment 7 (vegetation outside 135-acre refuge fence) is a photo taken on 

Thursday, July 22, 2010. The new refuge fence is in the background. As you can 

see, there is no overgrazing outside the fence even after five months. Attachment 

8 (small exclosure and vegetation) is a photo also taken on July 22nd next to one 

of six 16’ X 16’ exclosures constructed as part of the current NCSU/USFWS study. 

There is also no evidence of overgrazing in these photos, even in last summer’s 

drought conditions. 

Wild Horse Management: 

The Corolla Wild Horse Fund is the NGO that physically manages and cares for 

the herd. We currently employ four fulltime staff (executive director, herd manager, 

director of operations, program coordinator), and five seasonal staff. Four volunteers 

serve as Sanctuary Patrol Officers who regularly assist with education on the beach 

and behind the dunes. Twenty volunteers are available to assist with captures or 

return of escaped horses. Another group of volunteers assist in our two mission related stores and with fund raising activities. We work closely with the Currituck 

Sherriff’s Department regarding enforcement of the Currituck County Wild Horse 

29 

Ordinance and any other issues regarding the safety of the horses and public. 

CWHF is on call 24/7, 365 days a year to respond to emergencies with the horses. 

We have rescued and rehabilitated 19 horses in the last four years and found adoptive homes for 38 horses. CWHF maintains a monthly boarding contract at a private 

stable for horses awaiting adoption because they cannot be returned to the wild. The 

CWHF Herd Manager works with the horses to domesticate and train them and 

match them with a loving adoptive home. He is a natural horse trainer and a farrier. We routinely transport a formerly wild horse to offsite events for education and 

bring a gentled horse awaiting adoption to the grounds of our Wild Horse Museum 

every Wednesday from Memorial Day through October. (Attachment 9—children 

petting rescued and gentled wild horse) For the last three years, four formerly wild 

horses have been ridden in the local Fourth of July parade on a street lined with 

5,000 spectators. 

CWHF also transports deceased horses to Raleigh for necropsy and covers all associated costs. It is also our responsibility to assist in veterinary euthanizations in 

the field. 

The CWHF Herd Manager maintains all barrier fences including the cabled fence 

out into the ocean and CWHF routinely arranges for the accumulated sand to be 

removed from the cattle guards. 

All expenses related to wild horse management are incurred by CWHF with no 

cost to the federal government. The implementation of H.R. 306 would not create 

any horse management costs to the federal government as long as the CWHF continues to manage the herd. In 2006, when there were 119 horses, no additional 

CNWR staff was required to address herd size. Currituck County contributes 18% 

of the CWHF’s annual budget through occupancy taxes and CWHF raises the remaining $346,000 through our nationwide membership program, our two mission related stores, donations, grants, and special events. Our free Wild Horse Museum 

educates over 75,000 national and international visitors annually. The CWHF distributes over 50,000 educational brochures each year, produces a quarterly newsletter, and has recently published a book. 

In the last year CWHF has worked cooperatively with the county to create and 

implement a new ordinance prohibiting domestic horses on the north beach to eliminate the potential of disease (either housed on private property or ridden on the 

beach); to strengthen the existing County Wild Horse Ordinance by adding stronger 

language; supported changes to the County’ s Unified Development Ordinance to 

better monitor the actions of commercial horse tours; testified at a public hearing 

against commercial airboat tours in the private canals and Currituck Sound; collected and tested water, soil, and plant samples from all areas of the north beach; 

worked with area real estate companies to inform all persons renting in the Corolla 

area about the Wild Horse Ordinance; supplied jeep rental companies in Dare County with handouts regarding the Wild Horse Ordinance; and coordinated the campaign to designate the Colonial Spanish Mustang as the North Carolina state horse. 

Land Conservation: 

The CWHF holds 70 acres in a donated conservation easement and we are working with a local realtor (who is also a volunteer), to compile a list of available land 

for sale. Many lots have been on the market for a considerable time period or are 

unbuildable. 

The CWHF website lists land donation as a method of helping to protect and preserve the wild horses and has initiated the ‘‘Freedom Fund,’’ a restricted account 

for the purchase of land to be placed in permanent conservation easements for the 

horses. 

The CWHF Herd Manager is currently working with Currituck County Cooperative Extension to determine what types of grasses can be seeded in our conservation 

area for additional use by the horses and is exploring methods to cost effectively 

open up more available grazing area in the conservation area. 

The long-term goal of the Corolla Wild Horse Fund is to own significant land and 

place it in permanent conservation easements for use by the wild horses and other 

wildlife. The north beach of the Currituck Outer Banks is one of the last remaining 

underdeveloped coastal areas left. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife—including 

wild horses. As someone who travels that area frequently, I am constantly reminded 

how very important it is to protect and preserve what is left. I see it weekly and 

often times daily during the height of tourist season. 

Conclusion: 

For nearly 500 years, the wild horses of Corolla have persevered against all odds. 

I never tire of seeing them and I am always moved by their strength, intelligence 

and great beauty. They have a strong sense of family and grieve for lost members. 

30 

Their will to live is unparalleled by any other breed of horse. They are without a 

doubt one of the most athletic breeds I have ever encountered. (Attachment 9—floating trot of a stallion) These sons and daughters of the sand carry a wealth of genetic 

history that is quickly, not slowly, dying. High levels of inbreeding have already produced a few exceptionally small horses. We are seeing a decline in the number of 

foals living to adulthood and an increasing number of horses with other abnormalities. 

The North Carolina State Horse will soon disappear from the northern Outer 

Banks. Managing the wild horses of Corolla at a maximum of 60 is managing for 

extinction. This is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of two world renowned 

equine geneticists, Dr. E. Gus Cothran and Dr. Phil Sponenberg. 

In response to the April 2008 denial of my request for a larger herd size, Dr. 

Sponenberg, DVM, PhD. (professor of Pathology and Genetics, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine) wrote 

in an August 5, 2008 e mail to me: ‘‘In this, as in other cases, the competing interests need to somehow come to an effective compromise. I don’t know what that will 

look like, but I do know that if a genetically isolated horse population is to be genetically secure for the future, then the total population must be much closer to 100 

than 60.’’ 

The Corolla Wild Horse Fund is not asking for hundreds of horses. We are asking 

for a target population of 120—130—the number recommended by scientific data 

generated by an expert in the field. This is the same number that has existed on 

federal property on Shackleford Banks for the last 12 years on half the land that 

is available to the wild horses of Corolla. 

In the case of the wild horses of Corolla, just raising the allowable herd size alone 

will not solve the issue of our horses all being too closely related to one another. 

Introductions of mares from the Shackleford herd are the only way to breathe new 

DNA into a gene pool headed for certain collapse. I have already had discussions 

with Dr. Stuska and Carolyn Mason and both are in favor of moving mares to 

Corolla when they are available. Two to four mares at a time will be sure to become 

the instant family of a Corolla stallion or two. Their offspring would be genetically 

diverse. 

The Corolla Wild Horse Fund has done an admirable job of managing wild horses 

in a complex and challenging environment with a small staff and a core group of 

dedicated volunteers. Like the wild horses, we are determined, and we find strength 

in their presence. (Attachment 10) I am honored to be their voice and ask you today 

to honor their history and protect their future. Please move H.R. 306 forward and 

save these historic horses for future generations to view, admire, and respect. 

[NOTE: A map entitled ‘‘Wild Horse Range Acreage, Corolla, NC’’ 

follows. Pictures submitted for the record have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

31 

Dr. FLEMING [presiding]. I thank the witnesses this morning for 

your testimonies. At this point we will begin questions of the witnesses. Again, to allow our Members to participate, Members are 

limited to five minutes for their questions; however, we may have 

more than one round of questioning. I now recognize myself for five 


65625.002.eps
32 

minutes. The Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation bill included funding 

for Chesapeake Bay projects through the Interior Department, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, NOAA, the Department of Labor and the 

EPA. Since all these agencies and programs have different goals 

and missions, here is the question, Dr. Mann, how much scientific 

coordination is there between agency scientists? 

Dr. MANN. I think your statement illustrates the magnitude of 

the problem in terms of trying to develop a coherent program. The 

Chesapeake Bay Executive Order essentially directs this. When I 

look at the grassroots level amongst all the scientists who are in 

the Bay, we are verging on bewildered at trying to work out how 

this all works at the grassroots level in terms of trying to provide 

input back into the planning process. I think we have an opportunity here simply because of our budget restrictions at this point 

in time to ask some critical questions about how we maximize this 

productivity per dollar invested. I, for one, would be happy to participate in a broad interagency discussion to try to coalesce these 

into a more ordered manner. I do not think it is as well done as 

it could be. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes. And that is really a problem governmentwide, 

the desperate need to streamline our research, streamline our regulations. We have, well, in fact, there was a GAO report just the 

other day that showed unbelievable duplication. It is costly and it 

actually makes the process worse. How much coordination is there 

between scientists and policymakers without outside scientists who 

may be doing work either through Federal grants or through independent research? 

Dr. MANN. I think there is coordination and one of the reasons 

why we have the Scientific Technical Advisory Committee is to provide that as a conduit. I think what you see, though, when I again 

talk to a lot of my colleagues is the growth in the bureaucracy of 

the process is really difficult to try to have a two way information 

exchange that is efficient and dynamic. Yesterday I was at the Environment Virginia Conference in Lexington at VMI, and I was 

pleased to hear two people make the same statement. One of them 

was Jeff Corbin who is a Senior Advisor to the Administrator of the 

Chesapeake Bay Anacostia River Section of EPA, a Federal employee representing EPA, and Anthony Moore who is the Assistant 

Secretary of Natural Resources in Virginia. Both of them said what 

we need is flexibility, an adaptive approach, listen to innovative 

ideas, and then we have to get it back into the mechanisms as we 

go through our two year milestone reviews. With a program the 

size of the Chesapeake Bay Program, this is clearly difficult to do, 

but you have to find a mechanism of having that iteration to realign the goals, especially when we have a limited amount of funds, 

otherwise we are going to miss targets and we are going to miss 

opportunities. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you. How will the development of an adaptive management plan help the coordination? 

Dr. MANN. It is all about communication. It is as simple as that. 

The better that you communicate and the better that you respect, 

the better off you will be. Adaptive management is one way of addressing issues. I think the independent evaluator, however, is the 

33 

other component to it. Scientists have this strange way of doing 

things in that if you have a bright idea, you write it down, then 

you send it off to one of the agencies, and then what the agency 

does is it shares it with everyone else. You do not get to keep ideas. 

Only good ideas survive the peer-review process. It seems like a 

strange way of beating yourself up to get through a profession. We 

are all a little bit thick-skinned about this but it is the way in 

which you go forward. What you have to do in taking this philosophy is adopt the attitude that someone will come up with a better 

idea than mine and science will progress. It is very difficult to look 

at large programs that have long-term goals where the goal is way 

over there where the scientists keep telling you that in order to get 

here you have to continually move. Flexibility in large programs is 

very difficult. The problem that you have is compromising those 

two goals to make it work more efficiently. That is where an independent evaluator’s office I think is going to be very useful. Again, 

I go back and I provide the examples of the way in which the National Science Foundation runs large programs. They do it through 

a peer-review system that is critical and it demands quality. We 

have other models in other parts of the government and we should 

adopt them here. It is about communication. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the witnesses. I now recognize the Ranking 

Member for any questions he may have. Mr. Sablan? 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before 

I ask questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous 

consent to enter into the record a statement on H.R. 306 submitted 

by the Nature Conservancy. 

Dr. FLEMING. Without objection, so ordered. 

34 

[The letter from the Nature Conservancy follows:] 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will just go 

right to the questions. Mr. Siekaniec. I hope I said that right, Greg. 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. That is correct. Thank you. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. Let me ask you, what resources would the 

Service currently expend to implement the Currituck Outer Banks 

Wild Horse Management Fund? 


65625.004.eps
35 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. Presently, we estimate that the Fish and Wildlife Service spends approximately $100,000 of our budget to address 

the management of horses on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. 

This is primarily comprised of staff time, monitoring and fencing 

costs. In addition to, you know, what we spend sort of on an annual 

budget, we have also taken some steps, last year we spent $28,000 

to put in place a 143 acre sort of fenced exclosure from what we 

identified as our prime waterfowl habitat, sort of the best of the 

best. We also expended an aerial survey, we have $5,000 to complete an aerial survey, and we have expended $10,000 on a horse 

trailer, and dart guns and associated equipment. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. Notwithstanding this legislation, what 

resources does the Service expect to expend given the increasing 

herd size on the refuge? 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. Our best estimate is that our budgetary needs 

would rise to approximately $260,000 per year in recurring costs. 

Again, staff time, surveys, capture handling costs for horses, vehicles and facility type maintenance. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. I think there is also an implication of, you know, 

not just the financial costs to us, but the resource costs that we are 

also very concerned with. You know, I think we have already heard 

that the area was identified as a 12,000 acre horse management 

area, which I understand already through fencing and development 

has been reduced to 7,700 acres of which the refuge represents 

4,100 acres, so, as you can see, as we reduce this due to private 

developments that our concern is that we are going to start having 

the majority of the horse use and occupancy occurring on the National Wildlife Refuge. 

Mr. SABLAN. And if this is enacted, what additional resources 

would the Service expect to spend to implement the law? 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. I had a little trouble hearing your question, but 

you are asking what would we expect to be spending? 

Mr. SABLAN. Right. Additional expenses if the law were enacted. 

If H.R. 306 were enacted. 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. Yes. If the law was not enacted we would expect that, you know, our budget of $260,000 would need to be expanded 

just for us to be a part of the management operations for the 

Currituck refuge and the wild horses. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. 

McCalpin, right? Karen, good morning. 

Ms. MCCALPIN. Good morning. 

Mr. SABLAN. Do you have any estimates for how much it will cost 

the Federal Government to manage this wild horse herd should 

H.R. 306 become law? How much of this cost would be borne by 

your organization, please? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. We bear all of the management costs. I think the 

vehicle and horse trailer that Mr., I am sorry, Siekaniec, to which 

he was referring came from a grant in 2007. We have not asked 

for any other monies after that. I raise about $360,000 of our 

$421,000 budget ourselves. In the future, we would not need to request anything from the Service in terms of horse management 

costs. We also bear the cost of all of the immunocontraceptive 

drugs, PZP, which we administer. The guns that were acquired for 

36 

that also came from a $7,000 grant that provided us with the horse 

trailer that we did in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. We have a full-time herd manager that is on site almost 

on a daily basis. Also, the exclosure fence that put up I thought 

was part of a grant with North Carolina State University. 

Mr. SABLAN. So let me take one more shot. So we are saying that 

what you are spending and what they are spending is really the 

actual cost that we are spending to manage the herds right now, 

and that would probably increase with the enactment of H.R. 306? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. I do not see our budget increasing at all with the 

enactment, and I am not really sure, you know, I cannot speak for 

them, but we do the horse management. We are the ones that respond to the emergencies. I would also like to say that when we 

do the aerial counts every year, the maximum number of horses 

that have been ever counted on refuge property is 35. The rest of 

them are found on private land. In terms of development and the 

reduction of habitat, when they referred to the map, that reduction 

in acreage was because when the map was originally done it included a lot of areas to which the horses had no access, and so the 

new map of 7,500 acres is actual land to which the horses have access. It included water and islands that the horses were not using. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, ma’am. My time is up, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. Gentleman’s time is complete. I now recognize Mr. 

Wittman from Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

our panelists again for joining us today. I would like to begin by 

asking unanimous consent to submit my full remarks for the record 

and to include supporting letters from Ducks Unlimited and the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 

Dr. FLEMING. Without objection, so ordered. 

[A letter submitted for the record by the Chesapeake Bay 

Foundation follows:] 

April 6, 2011 

The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, we respectfully request that this 

conditional letter of support for bill H.R. 258, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability 

and Recovery Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Rob Wittman, be submitted 

for in inclusion into the record at the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, 

Oceans and Insular Affairs scheduled for Thursday, April 7, 2011. 

H.R. 258 includes several elements that we believe further ongoing efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The bill would require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, the 

chief executive of each Chesapeake Bay state, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 

to submit to Congress a financial report containing: an interagency crosscut budget 

for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; an accounting of funds 

received and obligated by all federal agencies for restoration activities. In addition, 

H.R. 258 would require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to develop and update every three years an adaptive management plan for 

restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed while also requiring the appointment of Independent Evaluator for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, who review 

37 

and report to Congress every three years on restoration activities and the use of 

adaptive management in such activities. 

H.R. 258 would provide transparency for Congress and the public to track ongoing federal, state, and local efforts and expenditures as part of Chesapeake Bay restoration activities, which is valuable in its own right and would also be useful to 

furthering public understanding of the sources, pathways, and effects of pollution 

on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. 

Our one concern with the text of H.R. 258 is with section three, which would require the EPA Administrator to develop a time-consuming report on Chesapeake 

Bay restoration activities, presumably at the federal as well as the state and local 

levels. In the year 2000, the Federal Government and the Chesapeake Bay States 

agreed to work together to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the recovery and restoration of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. More than ten years 

later, at the end of 2010, the Federal Government, six states, and the District of 

Columbia finally ushered in this new era of cooperation when they released detailed 

plans to reduce Chesapeake Bay pollution to restore water quality over the next fifteen years. 

We believe that the states are the appropriate authors for the types of detailed 

adaptive management plans envisioned in HR 258, and that a great deal of work 

has already been done by them. As a consequence, we believe that the bill language 

should be somewhat modified to direct the Administrator to ensure that the next 

iteration of the states’ plans include the various criteria listed in the bill. The language could further state that the Federal Leadership Committee, which the Administrator chairs, should include similar criteria in its Annual Action Plan and Annual 

Progress Report required by Executive Order 13508. In our view, these modest 

changes would allow Representative Wittman’s legislation to be more supportive of 

state-level planning and avoid duplication of work that has already been done to a 

large degree. 

We acknowledge and applaud the efforts of Representative Wittman and the other 

cosponsors of the bill to further the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its many 

tributaries, and we look forward to continuing to work with him and the other members of the House Natural Resources Committee on H.R. 258. We urge the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs to modify the legislation along the lines suggested above and then favorably report the legislation to the 

full House Natural Resources Committee. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Doug Siglin 

Director of Federal Affairs 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

38 

[A letter submitted for the record by Ducks Unlimited, 

Annapolis, Maryland, on H.R. 258 follows:] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. Dr. Mann, again, thank you for your 

testimony today and for your service to the citizens of Virginia, especially in your work there at VIMS. I wanted to follow up from 

your last comment where you talked about the independent evaluator and the utility of an independent evaluator in looking at how 

to evaluate restoration activities and the implementation of adaptive management. I want to get your overall view about how do you 

think an independent evaluator could best be utilized in this process of looking at what is happening, making sure that that independent evaluator is shaping decisionmaking at the agency level. 


65625.003.eps
39 

Dr. MANN. Let me respond to that by giving the example of what 

we do at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Over our 60 year 

history, we have a task that is spread throughout the code of Virginia to provide independent advisory review of issues for the Governor, for his cabinet, for the General Assembly, for the state agencies, for the citizens of the Commonwealth and further afield as requested. This footprint covers everything from the size of flounder 

that you can take to whether or not a gas pipeline should be put 

underneath the James River, to the large scale development and 

economic and ecological impacts of reservoirs, and at this point in 

time we are actually working with the Commonwealth and other 

state agencies on siting for what could be some of the largest wind 

power windmills anywhere in the world. We have a broad swath 

of expertise and our role is to provide independent scientific assessment. Now, these are not always popular. When we essentially 

guarded against the development of the King William Reservoir, 

before I got back to my office there were calls to the president of 

the university to have me fired. The point is is that we provide this 

independent evaluation, you do it publicly and you do it into the 

agencies at the point where they can best use that information, and 

you do it critically and without bias. It is a matter of communication and it is a matter of being honest, and if you do not like what 

you are going to hear from us, you are going to hear it anyway. 

This is how scientific review works. I think there is opportunity 

within the Bay program structure to do that. I think our history 

of doing this as an institution using the broad base of expertise 

that is available to us shows that we can contribute in just the 

same way to the Bay programs. So review is not the problem. Get 

us the information. If we cannot review it, we will find you somebody who can and we will provide the input in the other direction, 

and from there on, you have a conversation. 

Mr. WITTMAN. So it sounds like what you are saying is that an 

institution like VIMS would be particularly well-suited to play this 

independent evaluator role by looking at the science and to be a 

purveyor of that information, to be the facilitator of communication 

back and forth between the decisionmakers and the agencies, those 

folks having to implement parts of the Chesapeake Bay Act, and 

looking at what works, what does not and then using science as the 

foundation to determine how decisionmaking takes place, which, as 

you pointed out earlier, especially in days of resource challenges, 

we cannot afford to be taking wrong tracks that expend significant 

amounts of money that do not produce results. So I just wanted to 

get your thoughts along those lines. 

Dr. MANN. In a sentence, I would be happy to offer the resources 

of the institution toward this end. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. Very good. I wanted to get your thoughts, too, 

on why adaptive management as a model or as a paradigm is particularly applicable to complex environmental systems like the Bay. 

As we know, the Bay has many, many different aspects to it, and 

wanted to get your thoughts about why adaptive management 

would be a better paradigm than the existing paradigm that is 

being used to implement Bay programs and to attempt to achieve 

results, whether it is in restoration of natural resources or improvement in water quality and those types of areas. 

40 

Dr. MANN. I have commented on the fact that the Bay is a 

changing environment. Let me give you one example. Twenty-five 

years in one minute. Twenty-five years ago the striped bass populations in the Chesapeake Bay were extraordinarily depressed. 

Based upon a comprehensive and peer-reviewed numerical model, 

population dynamics, extraordinary measures were taken to rebuild the population, including moratoriums on fishing. Those people who enjoy striped bass fishing now, they know that it worked. 

We are done? No, we are not. About 10 years ago, many of the 

striped bass started to appear with huge, red lesions on the outside 

of them, truly grotesque red lesions, and everybody said it is a new 

disease that has come in, we should be worrying about a new disease. What did we learn from adaptive management? 

It turns out that this disease is caused by something called 

mycobacterium. It turns out that mycobacterium is present in most 

of the striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay, in just the same way 

as you carry around the cold bugs. It is when you get stressed in 

the winter that it manifests itself and you start sneezing. So what 

we have learned is is that these animals that we thought were free 

may, in fact, carry a very low level of an infectious disease, but 

why did this infectious disease suddenly manifest itself after a long 

period of time? It turns out that this might be due to the fact that 

the low oxygen pools in the bottom of the Bay are getting bigger. 

What has that got to do with striped bass? They use deep water, 

cold water, as refuges in the summer. If they cannot go into the 

refuges, they live in high temperatures. If they are in high temperatures, then the disease manifests itself. What we have here is 

an extraordinarily complex web that just deals with one species. So 

how do you manage striped bass now as opposed to how you did 

it 25 years ago? You need to incorporate into the management plan 

a component that deals with disease. That is adaptive management—taking new information, adding it back in, refining what 

you do, going forward and being prepared to change it again if it 

does not work. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. Next up is Mr. Southerland 

from Florida. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank all the witnesses for being here today. I want to ask, if I 

could, Dr. Hutchins, as far as the horses and the herd that we are 

discussing today, is it not possible that the horses arrived on these 

shores long before some of the other species that you are committed 

to protecting in the refuge? 

Dr. HUTCHINS. Well, that is unlikely. I mean, the horses arrived 

there approximately 500 years ago, as pointed out. That is just a 

drop in time when you are talking about geological time. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. But we do not know, do we? 

Dr. HUTCHINS. I am sure that most of our native species have 

been here for millennia. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Is it true, though, that in your statement you 

said in a perfect scenario the Federal horses should be removed 

from the refuge altogether? I mean, is the Wildlife Service, are you 

interested in them disappearing at all, I mean, that they would toVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:03 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\65625.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
41 

tally be removed and you would not have to deal with this issue 

at all? 

Dr. HUTCHINS. In a perfect world, yes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. Based on that, then if you are managing 

at 60, then you would literally be, in your perfect environment you 

would be managing this herd to extinction, correct? 

Dr. HUTCHINS. Well, we have talked a little bit about the genetic 

diversity in this herd which could easily be maintained by bringing 

in animals on a regular basis from outside that herd. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. 

Dr. HUTCHINS. You can maintain small, isolated populations genetically through that technique. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am curious about your philosophy that 

these are feral and they are pests. Obviously, you know, the foundation of this country, I mean, in your belief, that definition of 

feral, definition of pest, I guess it could also be said that the White 

man, the Caucasian, is feral. 

Dr. HUTCHINS. Well, if you wanted to take it that far. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am serious. No, no, no, no, no. 

Dr. HUTCHINS. This is a very different situation. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. No, no, no. But based on your definition that 

they were not here 500 years ago, we are feral. 

Dr. HUTCHINS. Well, let me just say that—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. That is a yes or no. I am running out of time. 

Dr. HUTCHINS. It is a no. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Really? 

Dr. HUTCHINS. Well, I mean, humans are the most adaptive 

species that is on this planet. We have gone everywhere on our 

own. We have not, you know, been removed around artificially, 

which is what we have done with other species. I might notice, or 

note that one of the issues that came up here was the impact of 

humans on the island ecosystem, but these results are cumulative. 

When you are getting non-native species and the impacts of humans on these sensitive habitats there are cumulative impacts that 

can really seriously affect our native wildlife. It really comes down 

to values. Do we really value our native wildlife and our refuges—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. 

Dr. HUTCHINS.—or are we going to create theme parks for nonnative species. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well, I think, sir, you made a great argument, though, for the Native Americans, OK? I think we should be 

on the reservations, OK? This was their land, OK, when we got 

here, OK? I think that if you take your theory, OK, which I think 

is a theory, and apply that to the way the country was founded, 

I think that the Caucasians, the Hispanics, the Asians, the Spanish-Americans, that we would be, by your definition, feral and 

clearly pests to the Native Americans. I want to ask, and 

Siekaniec? Is that? I apologize if I pronounced that wrong. You 

know, obviously it has been stated that people come—I remember 

when I was 12 years old my grandparents took me up there to see 

these horses and to see, you know, horses like this on the barrier 

islands, swim the channels, and I mean it was fascinating. It is a 

huge economic impact. If, in your world, there was an extinction 

42 

and they were removed and not there, what is the economic impact 

on jobs, small businesses, heads in beds, I mean really cranking 

the economy, what is the negative impact of, in your world, these 

horses not being there at all? Do we know that? 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. I do not have information that would lead us to 

an economic analysis having been done on whether they would be 

present or absent. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. So if we do not know the economic impact, and the negative economic impact, then it seems like you are 

pursuing a policy that would be like ready, shoot, aim, and so I 

would, I just, I find it amazing that we have total disregard, OK, 

to humans since we have the ability to adapt. I mean, you are asking us to adapt in a way that I think is very unfair and I think 

it is irresponsible. Finally to you, Ms. McCalpin, thank you for your 

efforts. I think these horses have great value. I think they are part 

of the culture here. Five hundred years. They were here welcoming 

us when we got here. I applaud them for their longevity and their 

ability to adapt. I think this is perhaps the strongest challenge 

they have, to adapt to people that would love to see them become 

extinct. So I know I am over my time, but, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I think we are 

all still very interested in these subjects so we would like to have 

another round if the witnesses would hang with us. We may be up 

against a vote in a few minutes so we will try to go ahead and 

squeeze this round in. I will begin the second round. Ms. McCalpin, 

in your testimony you mention that written record of these horses 

arrived on the Outer Banks of North Carolina dates back to 1520. 

Ms. MCCALPIN. Yes, sir. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Fish and Wildlife Service has consistently referred to these horses as pests or feral domestic animals, but the 

Service is committed to protecting another historic species at the 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge that arrived after the Corolla 

horses. Let me say parenthetically here, last year we had hearings 

and a bill was passed out of here that increased the range for feral 

donkeys and horses out West which is being paid for by taxpayers, 

or would be should that come to fruition. On the other hand, as I 

understand it, this is a program that is being supported privately. 

So I am really a bit mystified and befuddled about this sort of double standard that we seem to have, so I would first of all ask how 

long does a species have to be here in the United States before the 

Fish and Wildlife Service gives them a green card? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. I cannot answer that, sir. 

Dr. FLEMING. Sorry. Tough question. I apologize. Are you asking 

for, or do you anticipate asking the Federal Government for funding to implement H.R. 306? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. No, sir. Not a dime. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. The witness shakes her head no. Do you have 

any plans for land acquisition? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. In fact, we have just initiated the Green Fund. 

Now is a great time for us to be acquiring land. Unfortunately, 

with the economy, there are a lot of people that are sitting on land 

that is going into foreclosure, so our board has voted to move forward with a very concerted effort on trying to acquire land both 

43 

through grants and through donations, and that land would be put 

into conservation easements so that it would be permanently available not just to the wild horses, but to all the wildlife. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. It is my understanding that the Chincoteague 

National Wildlife Refuge allows grazing on two tracts for up to 150 

ponies through a special use permit with the nonprofit Chincoteague Fire Department. 

Ms. MCCALPIN. That is correct. 

Dr. FLEMING. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service objected to the 

management of these ponies? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. I am not aware of that. We have not had any of 

those discussions in the Wild Horse Advisory Board meetings that 

we have. 

Dr. FLEMING. So certainly you have no knowledge of any objections that they have—— 

Ms. MCCALPIN. No, and that is an activity that has been going 

on for quite a number of years. 

Dr. FLEMING. Where do the ponies live? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. They live on the wildlife refuge in two separate 

tracts. 

Dr. FLEMING. All right. What is the cost to the Service to manage 

the ponies? 

Ms. MCCALPIN. In Chincoteague? 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes. 

Ms. MCCALPIN. I do not know the answer to the question. I believe the cost is primarily incurred by the Chincoteague Fire Department, similarly to the Corolla Wild Horse Fund incurring the 

cost for managing the wild horses on Currituck. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes. Mr. Siekaniec, do you know what the cost is? 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. On Chincoteague refuge I do not have an estimate of what the costs are. I do have a little bit of information that 

sort of describes the relationship between us and the fire, the group 

that actually administers the horses. The horses do, they are on 

the refuge for a period of time, but they are also off the refuge for 

a period of time. We have actually entered into a successful management plan so we have a very clear understanding of how many 

horses would be on the refuge at what particular points in time 

and it is administered through a special use permit, and there was 

a point in time when we did recognize there was a lot of damage 

being done by horses on the Chincoteague refuge, which is how we 

had to end up in a management strategy plan. Through our comprehensive conservation plan, we now recognize that the best approach for management—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, let me interrupt you a moment because I am 

running out of time. Just, if you would, sir, explain to me why 

these are a species of ponies that certainly we treasure, and on the 

other hand the Corolla horses are pests that we seem not to want 

to try to support. Can you give me an idea of why we—I mean, this 

seems to be so internally inconsistent and contradictory. 

Mr. SIEKANIEC. Yes. Well, I think what we actually do is we 

would view the horses at Chincoteague as well as feral wild horses, 

just like we would at Currituck. We have entered into a very successful management plan at Chincoteague. We have a management 

plan that we have entered into at Currituck that we believe can 

44 

be very successful. What we are really arguing about is the number. We believe that a number of 110 to 120 would probably over 

stress the habitats associated with the amount available at 

Currituck. I believe Chincoteague has 13,000 acres available. 

Currituck is now 4,000 refuge and an additional three in the private land surrounding. So we have just two different relationships. 

Dr. FLEMING. My understanding is that three of the four signatories on that disagree with that. Anyway, my time is done so I 

thank the witnesses. I now yield to the Ranking Member for five 

minutes, sir. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a time 

when I am actually glad I come from islands, and 14 islands, I represent 14. Three of the islands are actually full conservation islands. People, individuals, whether you are Chamorro or Caucasian, you are not allowed on the island. We keep it for the birds, 

and the coconut crabs and things like that, so I do not have this 

problem. Dr. Mann, I mean, I am sorry, Dr. Hutchins, please. Do 

you have any concerns about the genetic viability of the herds? 

Dr. HUTCHINS. Well, once again, genetic viability, certainly small 

populations are susceptible to the loss of genetic diversity fairly 

rapidly because of inbreeding concerns. However, that can be taken 

care of by the occasional immigration of a few animals that would 

introduce, you know, genetic diversity into the herd. So I would not 

be that concerned about it. I think if it was an enclosed population 

that was there for a long time without the introduction of new genetic diversity, then it would be a concern. If new diversity can be 

introduced to the herd, it is not a concern. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much. Dr. Mann, can you please explain or elaborate on what resources are needed by the scientific 

community to improve upon existing models and to be able to communicate those results to the stakeholders of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Dr. MANN. Synthesis in terms of models is something that we 

can do using the data that is available. Support for those synthesis 

is relatively modest in terms of actual processing data that is available. That will I think be a very good place to start. Communication is something that scientists do not always do well, but it is 

something that we should be tasked with. It is matter of communicating with both the Federal offices and with the public in terms 

of stakeholders. It is something that I do a lot of in my role as an 

advisory service director. Not all of the science community does it 

well. It should be part of our mandate to do that. I think if you 

wish to reengage the science community in this, a general statement from this Committee that this is something that is important 

in terms of progressing with the Executive Order to get there, I 

think the community will respond. 

Mr. SABLAN. And because we are all dealing with conservation 

here, Mr. Chairman, I do not have to use up my time. I yield back 

the remainder. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. Next up for questions 

is the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to 

Dr. Mann again and pick up where you left off in talking about 

adaptive management. I want to take that to the next step. You 

talked very eloquently about making sure that the partners in Bay 

45 

restorations are engaged and that there are communications back 

and forth and how critical that is in decisionmaking, and to make 

sure that there are actually results being achieved. I want to ask 

you, you have an awful lot of experience in dealing with agencies 

there in Virginia, both state agencies and the Federal agencies, in 

many of these restoration activities, and in that experience are 

there any examples that you can cite, and maybe even recent examples, where there has not been that kind of cooperation or where 

we could be better at engagement and communications and making 

decisions about restoration activities, or water quality improvement, whatever it may be? I was just wondering if you might be 

able to share an example with us where that is critical to decisionmaking and outcomes. 

Dr. MANN. I think there are probably two very good examples 

where the pointed end of the stick is getting shoved in both directions at the moment. One of them is the TMVL debate which got 

to be quite testy and has now, I think, been resolved through a 

very good line of communication, I keep using that, between the 

state agencies and the EPA. This is total maximum daily loads. I 

think we are making progress there. If you want an example in the 

natural resource area, it is impossible to talk about the Chesapeake Bay without talking about oysters. Oyster restoration is 

probably one of the continuing controversies. If you look at the 

words in the Executive Order, 20 estuaries by 2025, I mean this 

is an extraordinarily bold goal. I mean, John Kennedy set bold 

goals to fly to the moon and back. When I talked about the striped 

bass example, the decisions on the moratorium on striped bass 

were based on a very comprehensive understanding of biology and 

a strong peer-reviewed mathematical model. We do not have one of 

those for oysters, and so at the moment, we are setting goals and 

we are setting strategies based on those. Now, the current NOAA 

strategy is to invest in sanctuaries. During my career in restoration 

I have been a strong proponent of these areas to keep out fishermen. Sanctuaries are great, and, in fact, they are used well in wildlife biology. There is also an attitude that if you invest in continuing to rebuild areas that are subject to fishing but limit fishing, 

you might also increase populations by this approach in areas that 

are not sanctuaries. You control access to them. I have also been 

a proponent of that. I have worked with the National Marine Fisheries on these sorts of things for 20 plus years. So there are two 

approaches here. Which one are you going to use? Well, in a period 

of unlimited resources, let us do both. We are not in a period of 

unlimited resources, and that is what is critical at the moment to 

have an active debate between the NOAA approach, it is not that 

this is wrong, or the state approach, and it is not that that is 

wrong either, it is just that if you have a limited amount of money, 

then each put forward a proposal and then have it reviewed by entities outside of the Chesapeake Bay or independent of this, this is 

the independent evaluator, and let them decide and give some 

guidance back as to how we could best invest where we are looking 

at a future of trying to build on relatively modest investments that 

are dictated by your budget. I think this is an example where I am 

not trying to gore anybody’s ox, but it is where an active debate, 

46 

peer-review, an independent evaluator and holding everyone accountable, this is an example where we can do this. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. It appears that all 

questions have been asked today. I would like to again thank the 

witnesses for their valuable testimony and for their appearance before this Subcommittee today. Members of the Subcommittee may 

have additional questions and we may ask that you respond to 

these in writing. The hearing record will stay open for 10 days to 

receive these responses. I want to thank Members and staff for 

their contributions to this hearing. If there is no further business, 

without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ