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

73-982 PDF 2013

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4094, 

‘‘PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE 

HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE 

RECREATIONAL AREA ACT’’; AND 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘ACCESS 

DENIED: TURNING AWAY VISITORS 

TO NATIONAL PARKS’’ 

LEGISLATIVE AND 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Friday, April 27, 2012 

Serial No. 112-108 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

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 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

David Rivera, FL 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, April 27, 2012 ................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

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

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Couch, John, President, Outer Banks Preservation Association, North 

Carolina ......................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4094 ........................................................... 25 

Crook, Karl C., President and CEO, Crook and Crook Inc., DBA Crook 

and Crook Fishing and Marine Supplies .................................................... 42 

Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing ............................................. 43 

Curlett, John J., Florida Resident .................................................................. 45 

Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing ............................................. 47 

Diaz-Balart, Hon. Mario, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, Oral statement on Oversight Hearing ...................................... 7 

Frost, Herbert C., Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and 

Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ............ 9 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4094 ........................................................... 11 

Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing ............................................. 13 

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

of North Carolina, Oral statement on H.R. 4094 ...................................... 4 

Judge, Warren, Chairman, Dare County Board of Commissioners, County 

of Dare, North Carolina ................................................................................ 17 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4094 ........................................................... 18 

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing ............................................. 6 

Wright, Kenneth W., Vice-Chair, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission ................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement on Oversight Hearing ............................................. 31 

Additional materials supplied: 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 63 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4094, TO 

AUTHORIZE PEDESTRIAN AND MOTORIZED 

VEHICULAR ACCESS IN CAPE HATTERAS 

NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL 

AREA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘PRESERVING ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS 

NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA 

ACT’’; AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

‘‘ACCESS DENIED: TURNING AWAY VISITORS 

TO NATIONAL PARKS.’’ 

Friday, April 27, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:06 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Rivera, Duncan, Grijalva, and 

Holt. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. The Committee will come to order. You just heard 

the gavel bang. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. 

Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member; however, I ask unanimous consent to include any Members’ opening statements in the hearing 

record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business today. And 

hearing no objections, it will be so ordered. 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

is meeting today to hear testimony on how the national park visitors are increasingly being denied access to our national parks in 

all defiance of common sense. 

Although we will focus on two examples today, the Biscayne 

National Park in Florida and Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, 

these overly restrictive policies show signs of developing into a 

nationwide problem that may require congressional action to correct, which is why today’s hearing is both an oversight hearing as 

well as a legislative hearing. 

In our oversight capacity, we will hear from the Park Service on 

a plan by the Biscayne National Park to close a popular 10,000- 

acre area to fishing and further restrict activities in other parts of 

the park. We will also hear from the knowledgeable local experts 

who are intimately familiar with the park and can provide insight 

2 

into the scientific issues involved and also tell us what effect the 

closure will have on recreational opportunities and on the local 

economy. 

The legislative part of the hearing today will look at H.R. 4094, 

introduced by our friend, Mr. Jones from North Carolina, whose 

district includes Cape Hatteras. 

This bill will restore reasonable pedestrian and motorized access 

to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. This 

bill will reinstitute a 2007 Park Service management plan that was 

based on a thorough biological opinion done by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to ensure that shorebirds and the piping plover 

and the sea turtles would not be jeopardized by park activities. 

Unfortunately, Federal authorities have acquiesced to the demands of a lawsuit brought by the environmental activist special 

interest groups for restrictions that go far beyond those found needed in the biological opinion. As a result, access to one of the top 

surf fishing spots in this country is severely restricted, and many 

local companies have seen up to a 50 percent decline in their 

business. 

So we welcome you here. We look forward to the testimony. 

I now turn to Mr. Grijalva for any opening remarks he may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands is meeting today 

to hear testimony on how National Park visitors are increasingly being denied access to our nation’s parks. Although we will focus on two examples today, Biscayne 

National Park in Florida and Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, these overly restrictive policies show signs of developing into a nation-wide problem that may require 

Congressional action to correct. That is why today’s hearing is both an oversight 

hearing and a legislative hearing. 

In our oversight capacity, we will hear from the Park Service on a plan by Biscayne National Park to close a popular 10,000 acre area to fishing and further restrict activities in in other parts of the park. We will also hear from knowledgeable 

local experts who are intimately familiar with the park and can provide insights 

into the scientific issues involved and also tell us what effect the closure will have 

on recreational opportunities and on the local economy. 

The legislative part of today’s hearing will look at H.R. 4094, introduced by Mr. 

Jones whose district includes Cape Hatteras. This bill would restore reasonable pedestrian and motorized access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational 

Area. This bill would reinstitute a 2007 Park Service management plan that was 

based on a thorough Biological Opinion done by the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

to ensure that a shorebird, the piping plover, and sea turtles would not be jeopardized by park activities. 

Unfortunately, federal authorities have acquiesced to the demands and lawsuits 

brought by environmental activists for restrictions that go far beyond those found 

needed in the biological opinion. As a result, access to one of the top surf fishing 

spots in the country is severely restricted and many local companies have seen a 

50% decline in business. 

I now turn to Mr. Grijalva for his opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Summer vacation for many families is being planned as we 

speak, and if you would listen to those who planned this hearing, 

you would think that there was no way to visit a national seashore 

or park this summer. The last thing people want on their beach 

3 

vacation is conflict. We get enough of that, from my experience, 

with the kids in the backseat. 

The parks are dealing with dueling mandates issued nearly a 

century ago. They constantly have to balance the protection of resources with providing recreational access. In the two issues we are 

hearing about today, the issue is that certain people don’t agree 

with the balance the Park Service is seeking to strike. Never mind 

the public process and sound science that informed the agency; 

people want to go outside that process and have legislators put 

their finger on the scale. 

In the first case today, we are dealing with a bill that overrides 

years of work done by various organizations to reach a sound management plan. Second, we will have an oversight hearing on a plan 

that isn’t even finished. Both of these plans have sound science 

supporting the suggestions—something everyone may not like, but 

it is a nonpartisan view. 

I welcome the witnesses here today. I would have liked to welcome locals from the Outer Banks communities who have a different opinion than those that are here today. Unfortunately, those 

who have spoken out on this issue in town have been harassed and 

in some cases threatened. We ask for people to be involved in their 

government, yet in this situation people are ridiculed, have nails 

put in their driveway, and in one case photos were taken inside of 

a home as a threat. What a sad commentary on a situation that 

should involve the entire community. 

Cape Hatteras has over 60 miles of beach with only 9 miles 

closed to resource protection. In our oversight hearing today, we 

are intervening in a public process because we are unhappy with 

the direction of that process. The plan is still a draft, and the 

National Park Service has engaged the community throughout this 

process. 

One witness will testify about children fishing in the Biscayne 

Bay and the challenges with the marine reserve zone. Another 

group wanted to share their scuba diving stories with young people 

and how they see fewer fish each year. It is about choices we make 

and how they affect the future. 

Thank you again to our panelists. I look forward to hearing from 

you. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́ l M. Grijalva, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Summer vacation for many families is being planned as we speak. 

If you would listen to those who planned this hearing today, you would think that 

there was no way to visit a national seashore or park this summer. 

The last thing people want on their beach vacation is conflict. They get enough 

of that from the kids riding in the back seat of the car. 

The parks are dealing with the dueling mandates issued nearly a century ago— 

they constantly have to balance the protection of resources with providing for recreational access. 

In the two issues we are hearing about today, the issue is that certain people 

don’t agree with the balance the Park Service is seeking to strike. 

Nevermind the public processes and sound science that informed the agency—people want to go outside of that process and have legislators put their finger on the 

scale. 

4 

In the first case today, we are dealing with a bill that overrides years of work 

done by various organizations to reach a sound management plan. 

Second, we will have an oversight hearing on a plan that isn’t even finished. 

Both of these plans have sound science supporting the suggestions, something 

that everyone may not like, but it is a non-partisan view. 

I welcome the witnesses here today. 

I would have liked to welcome locals from the Outer Banks communities who have 

a different opinion than those here. Unfortunately, those who have spoken out on 

this issue in town have been harassed, and in some cases, threatened. 

We ask for people to be involved in their government, yet in this situation, people 

are ridiculed, have nails put in their driveway, and in one case, photos were taken 

inside of a home as a threat. What a sad commentary on this situation! 

Cape Hatteras has over 60 miles of beach, with only 9 miles closed for resource 

protection. 

In our oversight hearing today, we are again intervening in a public process because some are unhappy with the direction of the process. 

The plan is still a draft and the National Park Service has engaged the community in the process. 

One witness will testify about children fishing in the Biscayne Bay and the challenges with the Marine Reserve Zone. Another group wanted to share their scuba 

diving stories with young people and how they see fewer fish each year. It is about 

choices that we make and how they affect the future. 

I have letters of support to submit for the record on both bills. 

Thank you, again, to our panelist. I look forward to hearing from you all. 

Mr. BISHOP. We will now hear from our first panel, which consists of our colleagues: first, Representative Jones from North Carolina, who will talk about H.R. 4094; then our two friends from 

Florida, who will talk about what is happening in the Biscayne 

area. 

I would invite all three of you, if you wish, to stay with us for 

the entire testimony and be part of the panel. And if anyone wishes 

to be part of the panel, I would ask unanimous consent that they 

be allowed to join us up here for as long as they wish to stay. 

Seeing no objection, we are OK. 

Now, realizing I have often made that offer to friends who have 

come here to testify and I have yet to have anyone accept that 

offer, if you decide to testify and go, I will take it personally and 

I will remember it for a hell of a long time. 

But having said that, you all know the drill. You have 5 minutes 

for oral presentations. You have the clock in front of you. Yellow 

is the light that means you have 1 minute left, and red is the time 

has expired. 

So, Congressman Jones, we will turn the 5 minutes over to you. 

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

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Ranking Member 

and Committee members for giving me an opportunity to talk 

about H.R. 4094. 

This bill is about jobs, it is about taxpayers’ right to access the 

recreational areas they own, and it is about restoring balance and 

common sense to Park Service management. H.R. 4094 would 

overturn a final rule implemented by the National Park Service in 

mid-February as well as a 2008 United States District Court order 

consent decree. The rule and the consent decree excessively restrict 

taxpayers’ access to Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area, and 

they are unnecessary to protect the wildlife. 

5 

H.R. 4094 would reinstitute the Park Service’s 2007 interim 

management strategy to govern vista access and species protection 

at Cape Hatteras. The interim strategy was backed by a 113-page 

biological opinion issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service which found that it would not jeopardize piping plover, sea 

turtles, or other species of concern. 

In addition to providing adequate protection for wildlife, 

H.R. 4094 would give taxpayers more reasonable access to the 

lands they own. It would reopen the 26 miles of beach that are now 

permanently closed to motorized beach access and give seashore 

managers flexibility to implement more balanced measures that 

maximize both recreational access and species protection. By doing 

so, the bill would reverse the significant job loss and economic decline that Hatteras Island has experienced since the consent decree 

cut off access to many of the most popular areas of the seashore. 

To give you an idea of how bad it is, I would like to submit a 

collection of notarized affidavits from Hatteras Island business 

owners. 

Hal Lester of Buxton states that his restaurant has seen a total 

loss of 50 percent of business since the consent decree. ‘‘Previously, 

I had a staff of up to 12 people. Now our workforce is half that size, 

and we struggle to survive.’’ 

Motel owner Jackie Gray of Buxton states that ‘‘during the first 

year under the consent decree, we experienced a sudden 50 percent 

drop in business from the preceding year. This year, my business 

is down an additional 65 percent. Before the consent decree, my 

business employed six people. Because of the closure, we now have 

only two employees. Our 53-year-old business is now in jeopardy.’’ 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, the bottom line here is that 

the Federal Government is unnecessarily blocking the public from 

a national seashore created for their recreation, and, in doing so, 

it is destroying jobs. We can fix this problem by enacting 

H.R. 4094, and there is broad bipartisan public support for doing 

so. 

I am grateful that North Carolina Senators Richard Burr and 

Senator Kay Hagan came together yesterday to jointly introduce a 

Senate companion of H.R. 4094. The bill is also supported by a 

wide variety of national sportsmen and fishing groups, including 

the American Sportfishing Association, Recreational Fishing Alliance, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and International 

Game Fish Association. These groups and many others have signed 

letters supporting H.R. 4094, and I would like to include those in 

the record. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is urgently needed, and I 

urge the Subcommittee to quickly take action to approve it. 

With that, before closing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

I would like to say: The Republicans talk about jobs; the Democrats 

talk about jobs. Let’s save the economy of Dare County. 

And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you will provide those other letters and supporting documents, we will include those in the record, without objection. 

6 

All right, let’s turn to our good friends from Florida. The 

gentlelady from Florida, to talk about this particular issue, is going 

to be recognized for 5 minutes, if you would. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Bishop, 

Ranking Member Grijalva, Mr. Rivera, and Dr. Holt. Thank you so 

much for the opportunity to speak before you today. 

Biscayne National Park is vital to my constituents, for their livelihoods as much as for their own recreation. Since the park announced that it would update its general management plan, I have 

heard from numerous anglers and boaters about their concerns 

that this magnificent resource might not remain truly accessible. 

Just this past Monday, I sat down with my congressional colleagues David Rivera and Mario Diaz-Balart to discuss with Superintendent Mark Lewis the five alternative proposed general management plans. Alternative 4 might turn out to be the preferred 

framework of park managers. Following this meeting, I asked several members of our South Florida community who are heavily involved with Biscayne National Park to share their thoughts on 

what Alternative 4 would mean to them were it to be implemented. 

The responses I received offered strong objections to the proposed 

plan. 

All were unified in opposing the controversial proposed marine 

reserve zone, which would close all fishing, that they say is overly 

restrictive. The marine reserve zone would be over 10,000 acres or 

7 percent of the park’s marine waters and is almost 30 percent of 

the park’s reef tract. 

The loss of fishing opportunities and their associated economic 

impacts would be significant on our community. These park users 

consider the closures of the most popular and productive fishing 

waters draconian and based on flimsy, outdated or simply feel-good 

speculation of perceived benefits. 

Another common theme that emerged was disbelief that the park 

chose to disregard the recommendations of the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, which cooperatively manages 

the park’s fishing resources, and the park’s own Fisheries Management Plan Stakeholders Working Group. 

We all share the same goal of ensuring healthy, vibrant, and sustainable park and fisheries. With careful management, our beloved 

Biscayne National Park will remain a jewel of our community and 

available for generations of visitors to respect and enjoy. I expect 

that this hearing will help preserve the unique culture surrounding 

south Florida’s water-centered way of life while also protecting our 

environment and maintaining public access to the park’s waters. 

Thank you to all the Members, and I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony again. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 

Biscayne National Park is vital to my constituents, for their livelihoods as much 

as their own recreation. 

7 

Since the park announced that it would update its General Management Plan, I 

have heard from numerous anglers and boaters about their concerns that this magnificent resource might not remain truly accessible. 

Just this past Monday, I sat down with my Congressional colleagues David Rivera 

and Mario Diaz-Balart to discuss with Superintendent Mark Lewis five alternative 

proposed General Management Plans. 

Alternative #4 might turn out to be the preferred framework of park managers. 

Following this meeting I asked several members of our South Florida community 

who are heavily involved with Biscayne National Park to share their thoughts on 

what Alternative #4 would mean to them if implemented. 

The responses I received offered strong objections to the proposed plan. 

And all were unified in opposing the controversial proposed Marine Reserve 

Zone—which could close all fishing—that they say is overly restrictive. 

The MRZ would be over 10 thousand acres, or 7% of the park’s marine waters, 

and is almost 30% of the park’s reef tract. 

The loss of fishing opportunities, and their associated economic impacts, would be 

significant. 

These park users consider the closure of the most popular and productive fishing 

waters draconian and based on flimsy, outdated and or simply feel-good speculation 

of perceived benefits. 

Another common theme that emerged was disbelief that the Park chose to disregard the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which cooperatively manages the park’s fisheries resources, and the park’s own 

Fishery Management Plan Stakeholder Working Group. 

We all share the same goal of ensuring healthy, vibrant, and sustainable park and 

fishery. 

With careful management our beloved Biscayne National Park will remain a jewel 

of our community and available for generations of visitors to respect and enjoy. 

I expect that this hearing will help preserve the unique culture surrounding 

South Florida’s water-centered way of life, while also protecting our environment 

and maintaining public to access the park’s waters. 

Mr. BISHOP. Representative Diaz-Balart, if you would like to take 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARIO DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you, and Mr. Ranking Member and members of this Committee. I 

think my colleague from South Florida really explained it as well 

as anybody could, and so I will just add—I will skip my statement 

and just add some points to it. 

Look, a couple things. This is a park that is highly utilized. It 

is right next to a large urban area. By the way, I speak to you— 

we speak to you not only as Members of Congress but as those who 

use that park. It is a park that is used by thousands and thousands of people for fishing, for scuba diving, for bird watching, et 

cetera. 

And I think just one of the things that has to be pointed out: Nobody cares more about the future of that area, about the health of 

that area than those that use it, than those that benefit from it, 

than Floridians. My colleague mentioned the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Commission. This is a commission, these are individuals 

who dedicate their lives, frankly, to protect the pristine areas of 

Florida. And Florida is very aggressive in doing so. 

So when we now see that—there have been meetings for a long, 

long time with the Florida stakeholders. And when this recommendation comes out, basically pretty much unanimously almost, all of those that were in the negotiations, that were in the 

conversation are, frankly, highly dissatisfied. Why are they dissatVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73982.TXT KATHY
8 

isfied? Because they believe that their thoughts, their recommendations, their ideas in order to protect this area without being overly 

intrusive were, frankly, just disregarded. And I repeat, nobody 

cares more about that area than those that live there, that utilize 

that park. That is number one. 

Number two is, you know, Florida, the entire U.S. economy is 

struggling. I don’t have to tell you all that. Florida’s is struggling 

more than the rest of the Nation. One of the largest industries that 

we have, one of the most important industries is this, is recreation, 

is fishing, is boating and boat manufacture. 

Now, I will be honest with you, if you own a 75-foot boat or a 

60-foot boat, you can go anywhere. But if you have a small one, 

where do you go? You go to the accessible, wonderful pristine 

places that are right next-door because that is what you can do if 

you have a small boat. That is who is going to be affected—not only 

those people who own those small boats or who borrow or charter 

those small boats, but the manufacturer of those small boats. 

So to wrap it up, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, 

closing off areas to those that pay for the management of the areas 

I believe has to be the last resort, the last thing you do. If everything else has been tried and has not been successful, then you can 

do that. But to do it when the stakeholders in that area who love 

this area, who protect this area, who utilize this area are telling 

us pretty much unanimously that there are other options, better 

options, we think that those options have to be explored first before 

something as draconian as this takes place. 

So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, members of 

the Committee. I share the concerns and the thoughts of my colleagues, of both my colleagues from South Florida, Chairwoman 

Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. David Rivera, who has also been a leader in 

this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and for this opportunity. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate all three of you being here. 

Does anyone have questions for our colleagues? 

Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t have a question, but I would like to just briefly state that 

I have seen this movement over the years of trying to turn some 

of our national parks into wilderness areas, and it never was intended to be that way. 

And then, also, I have noticed that some Federal and State wildlife and fisheries people seem to want to turn these areas into their 

own personal playgrounds and restrict access to ordinary people. 

Certainly, that makes their jobs easier, but it is a very elitist type 

of attitude, and it is just disgusting to me. These areas should be 

made as open and as accessible to as many people as possible and 

shouldn’t be restricted to the wealthy or the elites. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Appreciate that. 

Anything else? 

If not, we thank you for your testimony here. It is nice to have 

a local viewpoint, for what good that does, it is nice to have a local 

viewpoint here. You still have the option of staying here with us 

9 

if you would like to do that. If you have other business, we totally 

understand. I won’t forgive you, but I will understand. 

Mr. BISHOP. With that, we would like to invite the other witnesses up. We will just have everyone come up to the panel at the 

same time. 

So if I could invite up to the table Herbert Frost, who is from 

the National Resource Stewardship and Science from the National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior; Warren Judge, who 

will be testifying on 4094, who is with the Dare County Board of 

Commissioners, Dare County, North Carolina; John Couch, President of the Outer Banks Preservation Association from North Carolina; Kenneth Wright, who is the Vice Chairman of the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; K.C. Crook, who is a 

resident in Florida; and Jack Curlett, who is representing himself. 

We thank you all for being here. I think the drill is the same as 

it was with the prior panel. You have the clock before you. You 

have 5 minutes to give your oral testimony. We are going to try 

and keep that specific to the 5 minutes. The green light means you 

have plenty of time; the yellow light means you have 1 minute left; 

and the red, we really want you to quit on the red. 

And the same thing for the panel. When you have questions, 

when the red hits, we want it done on the questioning as well. 

So, with that, make sure you pull the microphones close to you 

as you testify. Let me start going down there with Mr. Frost. And 

unlike other times, if you would like to testify on both bills, the 

oversight portion of what is happening in Biscayne as well as 4094, 

at the same time, that would be fine. 

Mr. Frost, please. 

STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. FROST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

present the Department of the Interior’s view on H.R. 4094. This 

legislation would reinstate the 2007 interim protected species management strategy governing off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. 

The Department strongly opposes H.R. 4094. The Department 

supports allowing appropriate public use and access at the seashores to the greatest extent possible, while we ensure protection 

of the seashore’s wildlife, provide a variety of visitor uses, minimize 

conflicts among users, and promote safety. 

We strongly believe that the final ORV management plan and 

special regulation will accomplish these objectives far better than 

the defunct interim strategy. The plan and regulation, for the first 

time, provide long-term guidance for the management of ORV use 

and for the protection of affected wildlife species at the seashore. 

The seashore’s dynamic coastal processes create important habitats, including breeding sites for many important species of beachnesting birds. These species experienced declines in breeding populations at Cape Hatteras over the past 10 to 20 years prior to the 

implementation of the consent decree in 2008. Under our laws and 

regulations and policies, the National Park Service has an affirmaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73982.TXT KATHY
10 

tive responsibility to conserve and protect these species as well as 

other resources and values of the seashore. In addition, the Service 

is required to designate any routes or areas for ORV use by special 

regulation. 

The ORV management plan, a special regulation, brings the seashore into compliance with applicable laws and policies after many 

years of noncompliance. The plan also addresses past inconsistent 

management of ORV use, user conflicts, and safety concerns in a 

comprehensive manner. 

Although wildlife breeding success depends on a number of factors with the measures in place under the consent decree, there 

has been a striking improvement in the condition of protected 

beach-nesting wildlife species. Many of these measures have been 

adapted in the management plan. The seashore has experienced a 

record number of piping plover pairs and fledge chicks, American 

oystercatcher fledge chicks, least tern nests, and improved nesting 

results for other species of nesting colonial waterbirds. The number 

of sea turtles’ nests also has significantly increased. These improvements occurred even though many miles of the beach remain open, 

unaffected by species protection measures, and seashore visitation 

numbers remain stable. 

During the preparation of the management plan, the National 

Park Service evaluated the potential of environmental impacts of 

long-term implementation of the interim strategy. The analysis determined that if the interim strategy were continued, it would result in a long-term moderate to major adverse impact to piping 

plovers, American oystercatchers, and colonial waterbirds, and 

long-term major adverse impacts to sea turtles. Impacts to sea turtles and three species of colonial waterbirds has the potential to 

raise to the level of impairment, which would violate the Park 

Service Organic Act. 

In addition, if the interim strategy was to be reinstated, it would 

likely be counterproductive to visitor access. Many popular destinations, such as Cape Point and the inland spits, would still experience resource protection closures, particularly when highly mobile 

piping plover and American oystercatcher chicks are present. Several of the beach-nesting bird species at the seashore may renest 

several times during the same season if eggs or young chicks are 

lost. Under the consent decree, with its science-based buffers, there 

has been a noticeable reduction in the number of renesting attempts, which means the duration of the closures are typically 

shorter. 

No matter which management approach is in effect, the birds 

will continue to attempt to nest at these sites, even if resource protection is inadequate, because that is where the most suitable habitat is located. The interim strategy would allow for a higher level 

of human disturbance in proximity to nests and chicks at these key 

sites, which increases the chance that nests and young chicks will 

be lost, which in turn increases the likelihood that birds will renest 

one or more times at both sites. This could extend the length of 

time that any particular site would be closed due to breeding activity, even if the apparent size of the closure is smaller than that 

under the ORV management plan or consent decree. 

11 

The Department opposes H.R. 4094 for several additional reasons. These reasons are covered in my full written statement. 

Finally, I want to point out that the ORV management plan and 

special regulation are the products of an intensive 5-year-long planning process that included a high level of public participation, both 

through the NEPA process and negotiated rulemaking. It included 

four rounds of public comment opportunities. The NPS received 

more than 15,000 individual comments on the draft plan and more 

than 21,000 individual comments on the proposed special regulation. In completing the final plan and the special regulation, the 

NPS considered all comments, weighing competing interests, and 

ensured compliance with all applicable laws. 

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Frost follows:] 

Statement of Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 4094, To Authorize Pedestrian and Motorized Vehicular 

Access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, and for 

Other Purposes 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on 

H.R. 4094, a bill entitled ‘‘to authorize pedestrian and motorized vehicular access 

in Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, and for other purposes.’’ 

The Department strongly opposes H.R. 4094. This bill would reinstate the 2007 

Interim Protected Species Management Strategy (Interim Strategy) governing offroad vehicle (ORV) use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore). In response 

to a lawsuit challenging its adequacy, the Interim Strategy was modified by a courtapproved Consent Decree on April 30, 2008. The Seashore was managed under the 

Consent Decree through 2011. Meanwhile, the final ORV Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and special regulation went into effect on February 15, 2012. 

The Department supports allowing appropriate public use and access at the Seashore to the greatest extent possible, while also ensuring protection for the Seashore’s wildlife and providing a variety of visitor use experiences, minimizing conflicts among various users, and promoting the safety of all visitors. We strongly believe that the final ORV management plan and special regulation will accomplish 

these objectives far better than the defunct Interim Strategy. 

The final ORV management plan for the first time provides long-term guidance 

for the management of ORV use and the protection of affected wildlife species at 

the Seashore. The plan is designed to not only provide diverse visitor experience opportunities, manage ORV use in a manner appropriate to a unit of the National 

Park System, and provide a science-based approach to the conservation of protected 

wildlife species, but also to adapt to changing conditions over the life-span of the 

plan. It includes a five-year periodic review process that will enable the NPS to systematically evaluate the plan’s effectiveness and make any necessary changes. 

The Seashore’s dynamic coastal processes create important habitats, including 

breeding sites for many species of beach-nesting birds, among them the federally 

listed threatened piping plover, the state-listed threatened gull-billed tern, and a 

number of species of concern including the common tern, least tern, black skimmer, 

and the American oystercatcher. All of these species experienced declines in breeding population at Cape Hatteras over the 10–20 years prior to the implementation 

of the Consent Decree in 2008. For example, in 1989 the Seashore had 15 breeding 

pairs of piping plovers; and by 2001–2005, that number had dropped to only 2–3 

pairs attempting to nest each year. The numbers of colonial waterbird nests within 

the Seashore also plummeted from 1,204 nests in 1999 to 320 nests in 2007. 

Under the National Park Service Organic Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Seashore’s enabling act, and National Park Service 

(NPS) regulations and policies, the NPS has an affirmative responsibility to conserve and protect all of these species, as well as the other resources and values of 

the Seashore. Executive Order 11644 (1972), amended by Executive Order 11989 

(1977), requires the NPS to issue regulations to designate specific trails and areas 

12 

for ORV use based upon resource protection, visitor safety, and minimization of conflicts among uses of agency lands. The regulation that the NPS subsequently promulgated (36 C.F.R. § 4.10) requires the NPS to designate any routes or areas for 

ORV use by special regulation and in compliance with Executive Order 11644. 

The special regulation that went into effect on February 15 brings the Seashore 

into compliance with that regulation and with the Executive Orders and other applicable laws and policies, after many years of non-compliance. In addition to resource 

impacts, the approved plan addresses past inconsistent management of ORV use, 

user conflicts, and safety concerns in a comprehensive and consistent manner. 

The Interim Strategy was never intended to be in place over the long-term. At 

the time it was developed, the Seashore had no consistent approach to species protection and no ORV management plan or special regulation in place. While the Interim Strategy took an initial step toward establishing a science-based approach, 

key elements such as buffer distances for American oystercatchers and colonial 

waterbirds, and the lack of night driving restrictions during sea turtle nesting season, were inconsistent with the best available science. The 2006 USFWS biological 

opinion for the Interim Strategy indicated that it would cause adverse effects to federally listed species, but found no jeopardy to those species mainly because of the 

limited duration of implementation (expected to be no later than the end of 2009). 

Similarly, the 2007 NPS Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Interim 

Strategy indicated the action had the potential to adversely impact federally listed 

species and state-listed species of concern, but found that a more detailed analysis 

(an EIS) was not needed because of the limited period of time that the Interim 

Strategy would be implemented. 

By contrast, the species-specific buffer distances and the night driving restrictions 

contained in both the Consent Decree and in the plan/EIS are based on scientific 

studies and peer-reviewed management guidelines such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Piping Plover and Loggerhead Turtle Recovery Plans, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Open-File Report 2009–1262 (also referred to as the 

‘‘USGS protocols,’’) on the management of species of special concern at the Seashore. 

Buffer distances for state-listed species are based on relevant scientific studies recommended by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, USFWS, and 

USGS. 

Although breeding success depends on a number of factors, with the measures in 

place under the Consent Decree, there has been a striking improvement in the condition of protected beach-nesting wildlife species. The Seashore has experienced a 

record number of piping plover pairs and fledged chicks, American oystercatcher 

fledged chicks, least tern nests, and improved nesting results for other species of 

colonial waterbirds. The number of sea turtle nests also significantly increased, from 

an annual average of 77.3 between 2000–2007 to an average of 129 between 2008– 

2011. These improvements occurred even though many miles of beach remained 

open, unaffected by species protection measures, and Seashore visitation numbers 

remained stable. 

During the preparation of the EIS for the management plan, the NPS evaluated 

the potential environmental impacts of long-term implementation of the Interim 

Strategy. The analysis determined that if the Interim Strategy were continued into 

the future, it would result in long-term, moderate to major adverse impacts to piping plovers, American oystercatchers, and colonial waterbirds, and long-term, major 

adverse impacts to sea turtles. Impacts to sea turtles and three species of colonial 

waterbirds had the potential to rise to the level of ‘‘impairment,’’ which would violate the National Park Service Organic Act. 

Because the number of nesting birds has increased significantly since 2007, if the 

Interim Strategy were to be reinstated, it could be counterproductive to visitor access. Many popular destinations, such as Cape Point and the inlet spits, would still 

experience resource protection closures, particularly when highly mobile piping plover and American oystercatcher chicks are present. Several of the beach-nesting bird 

species at the Seashore may renest several times during the same season if eggs 

or very young chicks are lost. Under the Consent Decree, with its science-based buffers, there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of renesting attempts for 

piping plovers and American oystercatchers, which means the duration of closures 

is typically shorter. No matter which management approach is in effect, the birds 

will continue to attempt to nest at these sites, even if resource protection is inadequate, because that is where the most suitable habitat is located. The Interim 

Strategy would allow a higher level of human disturbance in proximity to nests and 

chicks at these key sites, which increases the chances that nests and young chicks 

will be lost, which in turn increases the likelihood that birds will renest one or more 

time at those sites. This could extend the length of time that any particular site 

13 

would be closed due to breeding activity, even if the apparent size of the closure 

is smaller than that under the ORV plan or Consent Decree. 

In addition to reinstating the Interim Strategy, H.R. 4094 provides authority for 

additional restrictions only for species listed as ‘‘endangered’’ under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, and only for the shortest possible time and on the smallest possible portions of the Seashore. This would conflict with numerous other laws and 

mandates including the National Park Service Organic Act, the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, the Seashore’s enabling act, the aforementioned Executive Orders, and 

NPS regulations implementing these laws, which provide for the protection of other 

migratory bird species and other park resources. 

H.R. 4094 also provides that the protection of endangered species at Cape Hatteras shall not be greater than the restrictions in effect for that species at any other 

national seashore. Species protection measures cannot reasonably be compared from 

seashore to seashore without considering the specific circumstances at each site and 

the context provided by the number and variety of protected species involved, the 

levels of ORV use, and the underlying restrictions provided by the respective ORV 

management plans and special regulations. Even though Cape Hatteras has a wider 

variety of beach nesting wildlife species than Cape Cod or Assateague, for example, 

its plan actually allows for a much higher level of ORV use on larger portions of 

the Seashore. It would be neither reasonable nor biologically sound for Cape Hatteras to use less protective measures if they were designed for a location where the 

level of ORV use is much lower to begin with. Nor does it appear that such an arbitrary approach could possibly comply with the ‘‘peer-reviewed science’’ requirement 

imposed elsewhere in the bill. The Cape Hatteras plan was specifically designed to 

be effective for the circumstances at Cape Hatteras. 

The bill would require, to the maximum extent possible, that pedestrian and vehicle access corridors be provided around closures implemented to protect wildlife 

nesting areas. This concept was thoroughly considered during the preparation of the 

plan and EIS. The plan already allows for such access corridors when not in conflict 

with species protection measures. But because of the Seashore’s typically narrow 

beaches, and the concentrations of nests at the best available habitat near the inlets 

and Cape Point, nesting areas are often close to the shoreline, and access corridors 

cannot always be allowed without defeating the fundamental purpose of such closures, which is to protect beach-nesting wildlife. Several species of shorebirds that 

nest at the Seashore have highly mobile chicks, which can move considerable distances from nests to foraging sites. Inadequate resource closures in the past have 

resulted in documented cases of human-caused loss or abandonment of nests and 

chick fatalities. Corridors that cut through a resource closure area would essentially 

undermine the function of the closure and render it compromised or even useless. 

Finally, the final ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation, are the products of an intensive five-year long planning process that included a high level of 

public participation through both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process and negotiated rulemaking, including four rounds of public comment opportunities. The NPS received more than 15,000 individual comments on the draft plan/ 

EIS and more than 21,000 individual comments on the proposed special regulation. 

In completing the final ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation, the NPS 

considered all comments, weighed competing interests and ensured compliance with 

all applicable laws. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Statement of Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on ‘‘Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the issue of access to national parks, particularly 

with regard to the impact of management plans on visitor access and local economies at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Biscayne National Park. 

Providing for visitor enjoyment of our national parks is required by the National 

Park Service Organic Act, along with the mandate to conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects of our parks unimpaired for future generations. They 

are areas where, in carrying out the Organic Act and other laws, we are responsible 

for protecting wildlife, ecosystems, water quality, and natural quiet; preserving our 

nation’s culture and history; educating visitors; and leaving a legacy of our nation’s 

natural and cultural heritage. For that reason, the management plans for our parks 

14 

that the National Park Service develops need to carefully weigh competing requirements, needs, and desires, particularly in terms of visitor use. 

The two parks that are the subject of this hearing, Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore) and Biscayne National Park (Park), have management plans—final 

and draft, respectively—that are seen by some as curtailing access to these two popular and highly valued Atlantic Coast parks. The off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan that was implemented this year at the Seashore has been highly controversial among both opponents and proponents of ORV restrictions. Similarly, the 

proposed General Management Plan (GMP) at the Park is controversial among opponents and proponents of the plan’s proposed marine reserve zone and non-combustion engine use zone. In both cases, the National Park Service is acting to preserve 

and protect the natural resources that are fundamental to the reason both of those 

areas are included in the National Park System. These management plans are instruments that will help us invest in the future viability of the wildlife and the ecosystems of the two parks. Restricting a relatively modest amount of use of these two 

parks now will help ensure that the public continues to have access to these natural 

resources over the long run. 

The National Park Service does not take lightly the imposition of restrictions on 

activities that were more freely enjoyed in the past; we understand the disappointment and loss new restrictions can generate. We are also keenly aware of how important parks are to gateway communities, and how changes in rules for recreational activities can affect the well-being of businesses in those communities. Our 

process for developing management plans includes taking into consideration the 

views of all affected parties. This public process helps us refine plans in ways that 

will minimize the disruption to traditional uses and businesses built around those 

uses while we act to comply with laws and regulations and balance competing 

interests. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore stretches for about 67 miles along three islands 

of the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The Seashore is famous for its soft sandy 

beaches, its outstanding natural beauty, and its seashore wildlife that inhabits the 

sand dunes, marshes, and woodlands. Long a popular recreation destination, Cape 

Hatteras attracts about 2.2 million visitors a year who come to walk the beach, 

swim, sail, fish, and enjoy the ambiance of the shore. In the towns that dot the 

Outer Banks, a major tourism industry has developed to serve the visiting tourists 

and local beachgoers, including fishermen. In 2010, visitors to the Seashore spent 

approximately $108 million, which supported about 1,700 jobs. 

We appreciate the long tradition and popularity of ORV use at Cape Hatteras, 

which many anglers use to haul gear to popular fishing spots, and the economic 

value that activity generates for the local communities. However, ORV use at the 

Seashore was out of compliance with laws and regulations for many years, and, 

after several efforts to achieve compliance faltered, an ORV management plan and 

special regulation for Cape Hatteras National Seashore were finally adopted on February 15, 2012. This management plan is being implemented following four years 

of management of the Seashore under a court-ordered Consent Decree, which imposed new restrictions on ORV use and helped begin reversing the decline of key 

seashore wildlife species. 

Under the science-based species protection measures of the Consent Decree, many 

of which are incorporated in the ORV management plan and special regulation, 

there has been a significant trend of improving conditions for beach nesting birds 

and sea turtles. During this period, the Seashore experienced record numbers of piping plover breeding pairs and fledged chicks, American oystercatcher fledged chicks, 

and least tern nests, as well as improved nesting results for other species of colonial 

waterbirds. Although a number of factors, including weather, predation, habitat 

availability, and the level of human disturbance ultimately affect shorebird and 

waterbird breeding success, under the Consent Decree the science-based buffers effectively minimized human disturbance of nesting areas at critical times during the 

breeding cycle. The number of sea turtle nests in the Seashore also significantly increased under the Consent Decree, which imposed a night driving restriction for the 

first time. During 2008—2011, the Seashore averaged 129 sea turtle nests annually, 

compared to an annual average of 77.3 from 2000—2007. 

Although the prescribed buffers have resulted in temporary closures of some popular locations when breeding activity was occurring, even at the peak of the breeding season there have generally been many miles of open beach entirely unaffected 

by the species protection measures. And, during this same period, annual visitation 

at the Seashore continued at a level similar to that of 2006—2007. Dare County, 

where the Seashore is located, experienced record occupancy tax revenues in 2010 

15 

and near-record revenues in 2011, despite the impacts of Hurricane Irene that, 

among other effects, closed North Carolina Highway 12 to Hatteras Island from August 27 to October 10, 2011. 

The ORV management plan and special regulation reflect the outcome of a fiveyear long intensive public process that included a high level of public participation 

through both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and negotiated 

rulemaking. In 2006, the National Park Service began public scoping for the plan/ 

EIS, and concurrent with that process, established a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee whose function was to assist directly in the development of special 

regulations for management of ORVs. The committee, composed of 29 representatives of diverse interests, met eleven times, for a total of 20 meeting days, between 

January 2007 and February 2009. There were also numerous subcommittee meetings on a number of issues such as agenda planning; natural resources; permits, 

passes and fees; routes and areas; socio-economic analysis; vehicle characteristics 

and operations; and village beaches. Although the committee did not reach consensus on a proposed regulation, it provided a valuable forum for the discussion of 

a wide variety of ORV management and resource protection issues and generated 

a large volume of useful information for the NPS. 

During the NEPA and rulemaking processes, the NPS also provided four rounds 

of public comment opportunities. The NPS received more than 15,000 individual 

comments on the draft plan/EIS and more than 21,000 individual comments on the 

proposed special regulation. The views of those who wanted less restrictive measures than the proposed plan called for were fully considered along with the views 

of those who wanted more restrictive measures. Currently, the ORV management 

plan and special regulation are the subject of a complaint that was filed by a coalition of ORV organizations with the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia 

on February 9, 2012. 

Biscayne National Park 

Biscayne National Park, located south of Miami, has over 151,000 acres of marine 

and estuarine waters, which make up about 95 percent of the park. Its coral reef 

is its signature feature. Some of the park’s half-million annual visitors come just 

to enjoy the scenery and picnic, but the main attraction is the opportunity for water 

recreation—swimming, snorkelling diving, boating, and fishing. Economic data suggest that Biscayne National Park supports more than 400 local jobs. 

The process to develop a new GMP to update the park’s 1983 plan began in 2000. 

Public meetings were held in 2001, 2009, and 2011. A preferred alternative, Alternative Four, was chosen in 2010. During the public comment period in 2011, more 

than 18,000 public comments were received and more than 300 people attended public meetings. The National Park Service is currently analyzing the public comments 

and expects to finalize the GMP by the end of this year. 

Two of the proposals in Alternative Four have generated significant interest and 

controversy: one is the proposed establishment of a marine reserve zone (MRZ), 

which would be a no-take area, where fishing of any kind would be prohibited. The 

other is the proposed establishment of non-combustion engine use zones. 

The proposal for a MRZ is intended to allow a portion of the coral reef a reprieve 

to recover its health and to offer visitors the opportunity to see an intact and 

unfished coral reef system. Coral reefs contain some of the most diverse ecosystems 

in the world, forming important habitat for thousands of corals, algae, fish, and 

other marine organisms. They also serve as natural areas for recreation, boost the 

marine tourism economy, support recreational and commercial fisheries, protect 

coastlines from storm damage, and function as rich warehouses for genetic and species diversity. 

Coral reefs are in decline worldwide and Biscayne’s reef is part of that trend. 

Peer-reviewed studies from the National Park Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Miami-Dade County, the University of Miami, the University of South Florida, the University of North CarolinaWilmington, and others have consistently detailed the loss of biological integrity of 

the park’s coral reef. The studies show that the reef’s coral and fish resources are 

greatly diminished from previous years. They also document a clear relationship between healthy fish populations and healthy reef ecosystems—coral reefs need 

healthy fish. Biscayne’s reef shows dramatic losses of living coral, from approximately 28 percent coverage three decades ago to only five to seven percent today. 

Fish populations in the park have been declining for years, with 64 percent of species observed less frequently in 2006–2007 than in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

Some species have disappeared from the park completely. 

Marine scientists the world over agree that the most effective tool for marine ecosystem repair is a MRZ. Other tools can be effective for maintaining sustainable fish 

16 

populations, but the National Park Service mission is different than merely achieving sustainable fisheries. Natural coral reef ecosystems contain the full size and age 

spectrum of all the species found in them. Fishing size limits, slot limits, and bag 

limits cannot achieve the goal of ecosystem repair. Temporary closures produce 

short-term growth but not long-term population enhancement. Catch and release is 

an effective tool for shallow water species but has proven to be far less successful 

with reef species. 

Areas where fish are not harvested also provide important recreational opportunities. Snorkeling and diving a healthy and vibrant coral reef, full of large fish and 

brilliant corals, are activities that many people find enjoyable and educational. 

MRZs are also good investments in tourism: areas that consistently contain large 

numbers of big fish, such as grouper and snapper, attract greater numbers of scuba 

divers, snorkelers, and others interested in seeing beautiful fish in their natural 

habitat. In MRZs, large fish often swim right up to snorkelers and divers, providing 

an experience unmatched in other places. By allowing Biscayne’s reef ecosystem to 

recover, the proposed marine reserve zone could make the park one of South Florida’s premier tourist destinations for divers, snorkelers, and marine enthusiasts. 

The draft GMP’s preferred alternative would set aside seven percent of the park’s 

waters as a marine reserve zone for this unparalleled recreation opportunity. The 

remaining 151,000 acres, or 93 percent of park waters, including 70 percent of the 

park’s reef tract, would remain open to fishing. The park carefully considered many 

factors in determining the location and size of the marine reserve zone. Those factors included the sea floor habitat and habitat connectivity, living coral cover, type 

of reef, shipwrecks, and minimization of impacts on other users. 

The proposed marine reserve zone has significant public support. In reviewing the 

more than 18,000 public comments on the Park’s draft GMP, our initial analysis indicates that more than 90 percent of the comments support alternatives containing 

a marine reserve zone. 

While the purpose of this marine reserve zone is for resource restoration and enhanced visitor experiences, not fishery management, numerous studies show that 

marine reserve zones are also good investments in fisheries. Research has shown 

that within a few years of establishing a zone, ‘‘spillover’’ from fish swimming out 

of the zone will benefit fishing in surrounding waters. As fish in a zone become larger and more prolific, many will eventually swim out, leading to greater catches in 

areas adjacent to the zone. Most large ‘‘trophy’’ fish caught in Florida are taken adjacent to closed no-take areas. 

The other issue that has attracted heightened interest in the GMP is the proposal 

to establish non-combustion engine use zones. These areas, commonly known as 

‘‘pole and troll’’ zones, are needed to protect fragile resources along portions of the 

mainland shoreline adjacent to impenetrable mangrove forests, in shallow seagrass 

areas, and near bird rookeries. These zones are fairly small and are in the extremely shallow waters (less than 2–1/2 feet deep), which prudent boaters would not 

motor across anyway. Many fishermen specifically requested these no-motor zones 

in the areas where they are proposed under Alternative Four. The zones will not 

prevent anyone from entering or using the park, and there are no areas proposed 

for non-combustion engine use zones that would prevent visitors from launching motorized boats. 

At both Biscayne and Cape Hatteras, the National Park Service is committed to 

providing for everyone’s enjoyment of the parks’ resources to the greatest extent 

possible, while ensuring protection of those resources, now and in the future. We 

believe that continued implementation of the current long-term ORV management 

plan and special regulation at Cape Hatteras, and the GMP for Biscayne, once finalized after consideration of public comments, will, over the long term, provide the 

best course to serve the varied interests of the both parks while meeting the National Park Service’s resource protection responsibilities. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Now we will turn to Mr. Couch, who will be testifying on 4094, if you would, please. I am sorry, I am dyslexic here. 

We will turn to Mr. Judge, who is next on the row here. I think 

you are also on 4094, and then Mr. Couch. I apologize for that. 

Mr. Judge, please. 

17 

STATEMENT OF WARREN JUDGE, CHAIRMAN, DARE COUNTY 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DARE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. JUDGE. No apology needed, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to be here today on behalf of 

the 6 million people who visit Dare County every year, the 33,000 

people who call it their home, and the 50,000 daily visitors inside 

the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area each day 

during the summer season. 

As Chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, I 

would like to share with you firsthand reports of the impact that 

increased beach access restrictions have had on our area and the 

grim future our businesses face under the newly enacted ORV rule 

of the National Park Service. 

Small businesses are the economic backbone of Dare County. 

Hardworking men and women have for generations created jobs 

and sustained economic growth for our area by offering outstanding 

service and hospitality to those who travel from around the Nation 

to enjoy our family oriented beaches and rich heritage of historical 

and cultural attractions. 

Tourism is our primary industry. It is the engine that drives our 

economy. There are no corporate headquarters in Dare County. We 

do not have technology corridors or factories to provide employment. What we do have are industrious people who ask only for a 

fair opportunity to earn their part of the American dream. 

That dream has been marred for many small-business owners 

who have dedicated their lives to serving those who visit the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. This group includes 

hundreds of grassroots entrepreneurs who operate restaurants, gift 

shops, motels, cottages, fishing tackle stores, and all the mom-andpop businesses that provide the necessary infrastructure to support 

our visitors. Since the consent decree was enacted in the spring of 

2008, these people have suffered. 

People like Frank Folb, who for over 25 years has operated a 

popular fishing tackle business on Hatteras Island in the village of 

Avon. He has seen a drop in revenue directly related to restricted 

beach access. In the first year alone of the consent decree, he suffered a 20 percent decrease, which has taken a harsh toll on his 

employees and their families. 

John Couch, who you will hear from in a minute, another smallbusiness owner, is near the entrance to the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse and the popular Cape Point fishing destination. He has carefully documented that when access is denied, his business goes 

down. Like many, he has witnessed that it is a cause-and-effect relationship, and he has experienced the pain. 

Another business owner who had the rug pulled out from beneath him by the consent decree is Bob Eakes. He was forced to 

lay off one-third of his workforce. And in order to survive, he also 

had to use funds set aside for his son’s education. 

These people represent a community that has already suffered 

enough. Unfortunately, we now face a future that holds more economic insecurity under the newly enacted ORV rule. Sadly, it imposes even greater restrictions than we have endured under the 

18 

consent decree. The ORV rule is a flawed approach to balancing 

reasonable recreation access with resource protection. 

That is why I am reaching out to you today for your support of 

H.R. 4094. This legislation would reinstate the interim management plan, a proven approach that has worked with success, a plan 

fully vetted with much public input that the Park Service found to 

be accurate in 2007. 

Dare County supports science-based resource management and 

believes this can best be achieved through H.R. 4094. It will allow 

the superintendent to make timely and practical adjustments that 

are in direct response to the actual conditions that are occurring 

at the seashore on a realtime basis. Under 4094, the superintendent will use his professional experience and his expertise to 

manage the seashore, rather than the rigid and unbending parameters of the existing ORV rule. Access decisions will be made by a 

park superintendent who is ultimately accountable to Congress 

rather than the courts or a rigid, arbitrary, flawed ORV plan. 

H.R. 4094 is good for the resources that are being protected, and 

it is good for the people. It represents a true win-win situation. 

No one is more committed to preserving a solid long-term ecological future for the beaches of the Outer Banks than the people of 

Dare County. For generations, our community has been on the vanguard of sustaining the natural resources for our children and our 

grandchildren to enjoy. I respectfully ask you to help us preserve 

our culture and our history and our way of life by enacting 

H.R. 4094. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I just want to say 

one more thing. When this happens in Dare County, in the Cape 

Hatteras seashore, and if it is allowed to continue to happen, it will 

spread down the coastline of North Carolina, up and down the East 

Coast of the United States and across this great country of ours, 

touching every public park, national park, and area. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your concern. You don’t 

want to be treated like we in the West are treated by them. 

Mr. JUDGE. Yes, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Judge follows:] 

Statement of Warren Judge, Chairman, Dare County Board of Commissioners, County of Dare, North Carolina, on H.R. 4094, To authorize 

pedestrian and motorized vehicular access in the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore Recreational Area 

Dare County North Carolina, known as the Outer Banks, is home to the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. Most of the seashore is within Dare 

County, with a portion in Ocracoke being located in neighboring Hyde County. 

The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area (CHNSRA) was established as America’s first national seashore with the promise that this unique area 

would always have recreational access for the people. 

The people of Dare County have cooperated with the National Park Service in developing America’s seashore into a popular attraction with cultural and historical 

significance. At the urging of the National Park Service, people built businesses and 

infrastructure to support and promote tourism to the area. For generations the area 

flourished and the area became a popular tourism destination because of its worldclass fishing and a host of family-oriented recreational activities. 

The County of Dare through its elected leaders, and in concert with grassroots 

community partners, has actively participated in every phase of the Federal Government’s planning and rulemaking process. 

19 

We advocated for the ‘‘Interim Management Strategy’’ and participated in the negotiated rulemaking process. We also engaged in Public Hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

(FEIS) and ORV Management Plan. We, and others, offered practical solutions that 

would satisfy the concerns required by Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 without 

compromising the area’s unique culture and economy. 

The National Park Service’s ORV Management Plan, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement upon which it is based, are seriously flawed. It lacks a 

sound scientific basis and reflects a distorted economic analysis. It also does not reflect the will of the people that was articulately expressed during public hearings. 

Throughout the public process, there was an outpouring of positive and substantive comments by the people of Dare County. Thousands of others, from across 

the nation, who love the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, joined 

us in this effort. 

We, the people, spoke as a virtually unanimous voice in recommending practical 

solutions for management of the seashore. However, the National Park Service did 

not listen to the clearly expressed will of the people and incorporate our concerns 

and suggestions. 

It has been our longstanding position that people and wildlife can live in harmony 

and that reasonable recreational access is consistent with proper resource management. For decades, we have maintained that meaningful access is fundamental to 

the visitor experience and the continued growth and economic vitality of the Outer 

Banks. 

Following are the specific areas of concern that we have identified for the seashore. We seek relief through passage of H.R. 4094, which would reinstate the Interim Management Plan for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational 

Area. 

• NO FEES for ORV permits 

• TRAINING & PERMITS available online and at multiple locations with convenient hours 

• NEW INFRASTRUCTURE should be established before new corridors & 

VFA’s 

• FLEXIBILITY FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT to adapt corridors and 

routes 

• SEASONAL VILLAGE CLOSURES based on conditions not arbitrary dates 

• ROUTES that recognize established patterns of historical use 

• CORRIDORS to provide access through & around areas of resource closures 

• ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS for safe access to 

all areas of the seashore 

• PREDATOR REMOVAL PROGRAM that destroys hundreds of mammals 

each year to protect a few selected species 

NO FEES FOR ORV PERMITS 

The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area rightly belongs to the 

American people. For generations, families have depended on access to the seashore 

for recreation. This access has historically been provided at no cost for the residents 

and visitors of the CHNSRA. 

Families plan all year long to visit Cape Hatteras. They save diligently in order 

to afford a destination where an American family can still enjoy a wholesome recreational experience at a reasonable price. This budgetary dynamic is a crucial one 

for the working people that frequent the CHNSRA. For these visitors, adding a fee 

to access the beach is akin to charging a fee to breathe the air. 

Instituting fees for use of the CHNSRA threatens to hurt tourism and adversely 

affect the visitor experience. This applies not only to the National Park Service 

properties on the Outer Banks, but to the overall tourism-based economy on which 

Dare County depends. 

User fees disproportionately affect those on fixed incomes, single parents, low-income visitors, and minorities. A $120 user fee for someone earning the minimum 

wage of $7.25 per hour is more greatly affected than someone earning an upper 

class income. We believe high user fees favor the rich and privileged over the poor 

and working middle class families that depend on free access to the Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore Recreational Area. 

The yearly and weekly fees, as imposed by the National Park Service, are excessively high and make no provision for the many who visit the seashore for a length 

of stay of less than one week. By ignoring the needs of those who make day trips 

and weekend excursions to the Outer Banks, the Park Service further impairs the 

visitor experience. 

20 

TRAINING & PERMITS available online and at multiple locations with convenient hours 

The American public and the visitors to the CHNSRA have responded well to educational efforts done by a variety of user groups and the County of Dare. Our residents and visitors have a long-standing position of promoting and supporting responsible stewardship of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. 

While additional education and training is desirable in any endeavor, we believe 

that requiring mandated training prior to the issuance of a permit is unwarranted 

in this case because of the effective job that has been done to promote and sustain 

reasonable use of the CHNSRA. 

If NPS continues to impose a training requirement, over our objection, then the 

following practical issues must be considered: 

Training and Permits Must Be Available Online 

Visitors to the CHNSRA generally have one (1) week in which to pack in 

as much vacation as possible. Visitors to the Outer Banks most frequently 

arrive on Saturday afternoon and stay through the calendar week. 

This pattern sets in place a weekly cycle that will choke the resources of 

NPS in handling a long line of incoming visitors each Saturday. Furthermore, the NPS permit office needs to be open well into the evening hours 

in order to accommodate those traveling tremendous distances to reach 

Dare County. 

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE should be established before new corridors & 

VFA’s 

NPS proposes new infrastructure for parking, ramps and access that should be 

implemented prior to the new routes, corridors and vehicle free areas (VFA’s) that 

are outlined in the ORV Management Plan. 

Vehicle free areas (VFA’s) will require additional off beach parking for those who 

want to be pedestrians within the new VFA’s. 

To impose new guidelines without the support system in place will only impede 

and restrict access and risk further harm to the visitor experience. 

FLEXIBILITY FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT to adapt corridors and routes 

The County of Dare has long supported giving flexibility to the Superintendent 

of the CHNSRA to use his or her best professional judgment in adapting corridors 

and routes as the physical nature and characteristics of the beach change on a dynamic basis. This common sense approach allows the Superintendent to modify access based upon the changing conditions that exist at the time, rather than arbitrarily written mandates. 

For example, when buffers are established to protect a resource, once the species 

have begun moving from the nesting area, the Superintendent could monitor and 

modify the established buffer on an on-going basis. This would ultimately provide 

more dynamic and effective resource protection, while at the same time providing 

more access. This represents a win-win situation for both protected resources and 

the American public. 

Also, as the landscape of the seashore changes due to weather and tide conditions 

the natural environment of the area changes as well. These changes can best be assessed, analyzed and adjusted as needed by the Superintendent. We believe the Superintendents of the CHNSRA, including the current one, are dedicated professionals with the ability and experience to manage the seashore in a responsible way. 

Dare County has long supported giving flexibility to the Superintendent. This was 

a fundamental principle in our participation in the drafting of early guidelines for 

the seashore including the Interim Management Strategy. Providing this flexibility 

for the Superintendent was a keystone of our position throughout the negotiated 

rulemaking process, the public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

NPS needs to trust and empower its Superintendent to adapt and alter corridors 

and routes. 

SEASONAL VILLAGE CLOSURES based on conditions not arbitrary dates 

Seasonal closures, in front of Hatteras Island Villages, should be based and depend on the season rather than arbitrary dates. This can be effectively developed, 

on an annual basis, by the Superintendent in partnership with officials from Dare 

and Hyde Counties. 

We believe that the seasonal closings of Village beaches has not been a problem 

that warrants the arbitrary and inconsistent dates outlined in the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) upon which the ORV Management Plan was written. 

21 

ROUTES 

The ORV Routes outlined in the ORV Management Plan have shortcomings that 

will significantly impair the visitor experience for the majority who visit the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. Eleven historically recognized routes 

have been excluded. These crucial areas should be revised to allow an adaptive management process that would reopen these closure areas. 

CORRIDORS 

Corridors are a vital tool in providing access while managing resources. The National Park Service should incorporate the use of corridors through and around buffers so the public does not suffer restricted access to an otherwise open area. 

Corridors effectively provide a small path around temporary resource closures in 

order to provide access to open areas that would otherwise be blocked. Corridors 

allow visitor access to an open area that may be sandwiched between two closed 

areas. These corridors have limited negative impacts to the protected species, but 

they are crucial to providing access during closures periods. 

In some instances, corridors can be made through or around closure areas. In 

other places, corridors can be established below the high tide line. Since unfledged 

chicks are not found in nests between the ocean and the high tide line, this type 

of pass through corridor would have no negative effect on wildlife and should be established throughout the seashore. 

In the example below, the visitors intended recreational area would be accessible 

through a small pass through corridor. Without this corridor, the area marked 

‘‘Open’’ would actually be closed because it would otherwise be impossible to get 

there. 

Corridors are vital to providing access in a way that does not hinder resource protection. Therefore, Dare County believes pass through corridors should be maintained for pedestrians and ORVs in all areas of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area throughout the entire breeding and nesting season. 

ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS for safe access to all 

areas of the seashore 

It is crucial that mobility impaired persons have free and open access to all areas 

of the seashore. It is fundamentally unfair that they be restricted to the areas directly in front of the villages as is now provided in the ORV Management Plan. 

Restricting access for the large number of handicapped visitors who frequent the 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area is a serious safety issue. Mobility impaired visitors depend upon their vehicle not only for transportation to the 

seashore, but as a necessary lifeline in the event of a medical emergency, a sudden 

change of weather or temperature conditions, or need for toilet facilities. 

Our mobility-impaired community includes those using wheelchairs, walkers, and 

canes. It also includes elderly visitors, many of whom are frail. Additionally, those 

coping with chronic medical needs could be hurt and caused to suffer. For example, 

visitors who need the continuous administration of oxygen would benefit from having their vehicle nearby as an energy-generating source for their oxygen supply system. 

PREDATOR REMOVAL PROGRAM 

People who love animals are shocked when they discover that the National Park 

Service has an on-going program to trap and kill hundreds of mammals each year 

in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. In an attempt to protect 

a few species of shorebirds, the Department of the Interior has decided to trap and 

kill their natural predators. 

This controversial program, euphemistically called ‘‘Predator Removal,’’ involves 

a small number of federally designated species, including the Piping Plover 

(Charadrius melodus), as well as some non-federally listed shorebirds. However, 


73982.001.eps
22 

none of the protected birds are classified as endangered, yet their natural predators 

are systemically trapped and killed. 

The mammals targeted for annihilation include Raccoon, Otter, Fox, Mink, Opossum, Muskrat and Nutria. Sadly, none of the special interest groups, who claim to 

defend wildlife, have raised their voice as advocates for the hundreds of mammals 

that have been systematically murdered each year. 

Dare County Commissioner, Jack Shea in an Op-Ed article wrote, ‘‘The environmentalists claim they want to protect wildlife, especially the innocent baby birds. 

But, what happens to the innocent baby raccoons, fox and mink whose murdered 

mother will never return home to the den?’’ He asks a series of probing Questions, 

‘‘Is the life of one species more precious than others? If so, who decides? Where is 

the outrage? Why do the ‘‘environmentalists’’ not advocate protection for all species? 

Why have they not raised their voice in defense of these slaughtered mammals?’’ 

He concludes, ‘‘Perhaps their silence reveals the pragmatic truth that the greatest 

threat to birds and turtles is from natural predators, not humans Instead, they 

loudly condemn recreational access while touting a party line that tries to make humans the villain.’’ 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 

The National Park Service in preparing its ORV Management Plan has made 

false, misleading and deceptive statements that warrant comment. We offer these 

additional comments in order to establish a clear and consistent record that reflects 

the position of Dare County – 

• NPS said in its summary of the proposed ORV rule—‘‘minimizing conflicts 

among various users.’’ In this comment, and in others like it, NPS would 

have everyone believe that the people who use the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore Recreation Area are in conflict with each other. We find this not to 

be true. 

It is our experience that those who favor responsible ORV access, which represents the overwhelming majority, have taken great strides to accommodate 

the few who disagree. 

We believe there is something for everyone at America’s first national seashore and have a documented track record of willingness to compromise and 

accommodate the needs of all user groups. This is a matter of public record 

during the negotiated rulemaking proceeding, of which Dare County was a 

participant. 

• The Piping Plover was described by the National Park Service as ‘‘listed 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).’’ NPS in this brief statement 

omits to give the American people the full truth about the species that prevents access to the most popular portions of the seashore for most of the tourism season. 

The Piping Plover is a non-indigenous ‘‘threatened’’ species that is not ‘‘endangered.’’ Words have meaning. NPS has chosen to describe this bird in a 

way that creates a false and misleading impression to the American people. 

• NPS stated that, ‘‘A consent decree agreed to by the plaintiffs, the NPS, 

and the interveners, Dare and Hyde counties.’’ 

Here again, the National Park Service makes a statement that warrants additional comment to clearly reflect our position. 

The County of Dare did in fact join as an intervener in the consent decree. 

However, NPS fails to disclose that our involvement was as a matter of practical necessity in order to best represent the people of Dare County. 

The Consent Decree, prepared by a few special interest groups behind closed 

doors, was never exposed to the light of public comment and review. 

We entered the case as an intervener rather than risk letting the special interest groups and a sympathetic Federal Judge close the seashore entirely. 

It was a situation where we had to choose the lesser of two evils. As Dare 

County Vice-Chairman Allen Burrus asked, ‘‘Do we choose to get shot in the 

foot, or in the head?’’ 

Although Dare County was a party to the Consent Decree as an intervener, 

for NPS to imply that Dare County was in any way in agreement with the 

Consent Decree is disingenuous. 

• The National Park Service claimed it conducted a ‘‘small business survey.’’ 

However, the work, which was done by contractor RTI, was never concluded 

or published prior to the close of public comments on the Environmental Impact Statements. This prevented the public from having access to the survey 

and being able to make informed comments about it. 

23 

Following the eventual release of the small business survey, we determined 

it was based upon a small sample size with a poor rate of return. The skewed 

results of this survey stand in stark contrast to sworn, notarized statements 

from business owners that were submitted by Dare County during the public 

comment process. Our survey of business owners documents a consistent pattern of how the Consent Decree has hurt small businesses. 

• Finally, we challenge the NPS conclusion in saying that the economic impact 

of the ORV rule: ‘‘will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health 

or safety or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities.’’ 

The National Park Service has dismissed and ignored the concerns of the 

local business community. The hard-working small business owners of Dare 

County have indeed suffered harm and will continue to do so under the ORV 

Management Plan. 

NPS may take comfort in saying the negative impact will not be harmful in 

a ‘‘material way.’’ This statement is untrue and insensitive to those in our 

community who have seen their savings depleted, businesses ruined and have 

had to lay-off valuable, long-term employees. 

The negative impact for our businesses has been already been severe and profound. If the ORV Management Plan is allowed to continue, it will cause even 

more harm to our fragile economy. NPS is out of touch with the local business 

community and insensitive to their needs and concerns. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT 

In his remarks to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, 

Dare County Chairman Warren Judge referenced comments made by several Hatteras Island business owners. These remarks are representative of the harm that 

has been done to Dare County business owners by restricting visitor access to the 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. 

Family-owned businesses are the backbone of Dare County. Hard working, local 

families have for generations provided employment opportunities for the community, 

and offered outstanding service and hospitality to Outer Banks visitors. 

These small business owners do not ask for special favors or government handouts, just a fair opportunity to earn their part of the American dream. 

Unfortunately, the consent decree has had a devastating and unfair impact on 

many Dare County businesses. 

The consent decree has taken a heavy toll on a wide range of business types including—automotive parts & repair, bait & tackle shops, campgrounds, charitable 

service providers, child care centers, fishing rod builders, marinas, motels and cottages, professional artists, restaurants, and retail shops. 

Even businesses whose revenue has stayed level or showed a modest increase 

have accomplished this at a costly price. Many have had to cut back employee 

hours, forego much-needed capital improvements, and sacrifice profits. 

CONCLUSION 

H.R. 4094 represents sound legislation for that will benefit the residents and visitors of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. 

The people of Dare County have already suffered enough. Now we face even further economic insecurity under the newly enacted ORV Rule, which imposes greater 

restrictions than the consent decree. 

No one is more committed to preserving a solid, long-term, ecological future for 

the beaches of the Outer Banks than the people of Dare County. For generations 

our community has been on the vanguard of sustaining the natural resources in 

order to preserve them for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. 

Dare County supports science-based resource management and believes a careful 

balance between protection and access is provided in the Interim Management 

Strategy that would be reinstituted upon passage of H.R. 4094. 

H.R. 4094 would allow access decisions to be made by the Park Superintendent, 

who is ultimately accountable to Congress, rather than the courts or a rigid and 

flawed ORV Management Plan. 

On behalf of the residents and visitors of Dare County North Carolina, we respectfully ask you to help us preserve our culture, our history, and our way of life 

by supporting H.R. 4094. 

Respectfully submitted 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, Mr. Couch, your turn. 

24 

STATEMENT OF JOHN COUCH, PRESIDENT, OUTER BANKS 

PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. COUCH. Mr. Chairman, Committee members, Congressman 

Jones, thank you for the invitation to speak on this important piece 

of legislation. 

My name is John Couch. I am a businessman with two ongoing 

businesses in the village of Buxton. I represent the Outer Banks 

Preservation Association, an advocate for free and open beach access. Our motto has always been, ‘‘Preserve and protect, not prohibit.’’ 

The rule instituted by the National Park Service has effectively 

taken the Nation’s first national seashore designated by Congress 

to be a recreational area and turned it into a wildlife refuge without congressional authorization. This will forever diminish the visitors’ experience in ways unintended by the enabling Act. 

H.R. 4094 will restore access and ensure that the Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore Recreational Area will be managed as intended, 

for recreation. It will also ensure that recreation will coexist with 

resource protection. 

The authors of the final rule strayed in their efforts. Their assessment of the visitor experience and the local economy is flawed. 

The guidelines and instruction provided by 4094 address this. 

Visitors come to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to participate in shore-based recreational activities. The range of family oriented activities includes swimming, fishing, lighthouse climbing, 

bird watching, surfing, kite boarding, and appeal to a wide crosssection of the American public. Regardless of the activity, almost 

all recreational opportunities occur on the beach, and these activities share a common need: the need to access the beach with gear 

in hand. Traditionally, beachgoers at Cape Hatteras have benefited 

from open access that predates the seashore. 

Our visitors have always understood that the value of the ORV 

is to transport family, friends, and equipment to the perfect, otherwise inaccessible location. Our enjoyment comes from the access, 

not from joyriding. Most beaches closed to ORV access are effectively closed to pedestrian access, where, without the means to 

transport family, children, elderly, and gear, the beach is inaccessible. 

The rule has permanently closed an additional 19 miles of beach 

to ORV access that has traditionally been available. And in these 

areas, only narrow strips of beach near parking lots are being used 

by walking visitors. The rule limits over 19 miles of beach to ORV 

access to winter months only, when recreational opportunities are 

limited at best. The rule suggests 29 miles of beach are open yearround to access by ORV. In truth, temporary resource protection 

closures for non-threatened or endangered species have already 

prevented both ORV and pedestrian access to most of these miles. 

Easter this year, 70 percent of ocean front between the top of the 

seashore to the end of Ocracoke Island was closed to ORV access. 

Easter found many visitors voicing their dismay and frustration, 

wondering who is responsible, and many vowing not to return. 

Temporary closures already implemented at Easter due to one piping plover, threatened species, three oystercatcher nests, not 

threatened or endangered, have taken 8 1/2 miles away from visiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73982.TXT KATHY
25 

tors. By Memorial Day and the start of the peak tourist season, 

beaches accessible by ORVs will likely be less than 10 miles and 

will remain that level until the end of August. 

Other surprises await our visitors. They will find that the short 

expanse of beach that they can access by ORVs must be vacated 

by 9 o’clock at night. No more beach bonfires or late-night or lateevening picnics. They will find no morning access for sunrise viewing or early morning fishing. And, finally, the visitor will learn that 

the significantly reduced access comes at a price of $120 for an annual permit, $50 for a weekly permit, with no daily pass for shortterm visitors. 

The National Park Service concluded that the impact of the rule 

on visitor experience is long-term moderate to major and adverse 

to ORV users and long-term beneficial to visitors who desire a vehicle-free beach experience. The Service does not point out that the 

vast majority of our visitors are ORV users and the majority of 

those that are not indifferent to ORV access, and that the visitors 

desiring a vehicle-free beach experience had many ORV miles 

available prior to the rule. 

The negative visitor experience as a result of the rule is directly 

responsible for the economic impact felt in the eight villages that 

lie within the seashore. For a tourist-based economy, the math is 

simple: no visitors, no business. 

When the Department of the Interior and the National Park 

Service courted the original property owners to join in the creation 

of the seashore, they quickly pointed out the financial gains that 

would be enjoyed through the development of visitor services. With 

more than a bit of initial hesitancy and suspicion, the villagers donated or sold their land, accepted the Park Service’s encouragement, and built the infrastructure to support tourism. Today, all 

businesses on Hatteras Island are directly driven by tourism. 

Visitation has suffered for the past 5 years due to access closures 

implemented by the consent decree. Fall visitation, always threatened by the possibility of storms and hurricanes, will now suffer 

due to new permanent management closures and procedures under 

the final rule. 

Seven hundred twenty-three businesses, 3,117 weekly rental 

properties, and 225 charter boats are found on Hatteras and 

Ocracoke Islands. All directly, indirectly exist for the tourist business. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Couch, if I could ask you to give one closing 

statement, sentence. 

Mr. COUCH. Thank you. 

I urge you to support the residents and the visitors of the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area by passing 

H.R. 4094. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good closing sentence. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COUCH. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Couch follows:] 

Statement of John Couch, President, 

Outer Banks Preservation Association, on H.R. 4094 

Mr. Chairman, committee members, Congressman Jones; 

Thank you for the invitation to speak on this important piece of legislation. 

26 

My name is John Couch. I have lived and worked on the Outer Banks since my 

childhood in the 50’s when my father brought our family to Hatteras Island. I am 

also a businessman with two ongoing businesses in the village of Buxton. I represent the Outer Banks Preservation Association, which was formed in the 1970’s 

to be an advocate for free and open beach access at Cape Hatteras for visitors and 

residents alike. Our motto is, and has always been Preserve and Protect, Not 

Prohibit. 

The rule instituted by the National Park Service on February 15th has effectively 

taken the nation’s first national seashore designated by Congress to be a ‘‘recreational area’’ and turned it into a wildlife refuge without congressional authorization. This will forever diminish the visitor experience in ways unintended by the enabling act. 

H.R. 4094 will restore access and ensure that the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area will be used as intended, and as it has been used for generations—for Recreation. It will also ensure that recreation can co-exist with resource protection which is important to all National Parks, Seashores and Recreational Areas. 

The authors of the Final Rule strayed in their efforts. Their assessment of the 

environmental impact of the rule in two significant areas—the visitor experience, 

and the local economy—is flawed. The guidelines and instruction provided by 

H.R. 4094 addresses these flaws. 

Visitor Experience 

The primary reason visitors come to Cape Hatteras is to participate in shorebased recreational activities. A range of family oriented activities, including swimming, fishing, lighthouse climbing, bird watching and more strenuous activities such 

as surfing and kite-boarding, appeal to a wide cross-section of the American public. 

Regardless of the activity, virtually all of the recreational opportunities occur on the 

beach. That is what brings visitors to the Hatteras seashore—Access to Recreational Activities on the Beach. And these reasons for access share a common 

need—the need for beach access with gear in hand. 

Traditionally, beach goers at Cape Hatteras have benefitted from open access dating back to before the Seashore was established. The faulty visions some have of 

dune buggies racing down the beach, jumping dunes and cutting donuts are far from 

reality at the Seashore. Visitors here have always understood that the value of the 

ORV is to transport family, friends and equipment to the perfect spot on the beach 

that would otherwise be inaccessible. Our enjoyment comes from access, not from 

joy-riding. 

To most visitors, beaches closed to ORV access are effectively closed to pedestrian 

access, for without the means to transport family, children, elderly and gear, the 

beach is inaccessible. 

The extent to which the Rule restricts ORV and other use of the Seashore is substantial. 

The Rule has permanently closed an additional 19 miles of beach to ORV 

access that has traditionally been available, and in these areas only narrow strips 

of beach near parking lots are being used by pedestrian visitors. 

The Rule limits 19.1 miles of beach to ORV access to winter months only, 

when recreational opportunities are limited at best. Prior to the Rule, these beaches 

were accessible by ORV in the spring, winter and fall by visitors who scheduled 

their trips expecting this availability. 

The Rule claims 29 miles of beach are open year round to access by ORV. In 

truth, temporary resource protection closures for non-threatened or endangered species have already prevented both ORV and pedestrian access to most of these miles 

during the height of our seasons. 

At Easter, this year, 70% of oceanfront between the top of the Seashore and the 

end of Ocracoke Island was closed to access by ORV. Some of this area, such as the 

12 miles of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, is understandably closed permanently to access by ORV. However, temporary closures already implemented at 

Easter, due to one piping plover (threatened) and three oystercatcher nests (not 

threatened or endangered) have already taken an additional 8.5 miles away from 

visitors. By Memorial Day and the start of the peak tourist season, beaches accessible by ORV will likely be less than 10 miles, and will remain at that level until 

August. 

Visitors also will encounter other surprises when they arrive. They will find that 

the short expanse of beach they can access by ORV must be vacated by 9:00 pm. 

No more beach bonfires or late evening picnics. They will find no morning access 

until 7:00 am, even though any good fisherman knows the morning bite will begin 

30 minutes before sunrise and end long before they can get to their spot. And fiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73982.TXT KATHY
27 

nally, the visitor will learn that the significantly reduced access they now have 

comes at a price of $120 for an annual permit, $50 for a weekly permit, and no daily 

pass for short term visitors. 

Easter found many visitors at restaurants, motels, realty companies, grocery 

stores, gift and tackle shops voicing their dismay and frustration, wondering who 

is responsible, and many vowing never to return. 

The National Park Service concluded that the impact of the Rule on visitor experience is ‘‘long-term moderate to major and adverse to ORV users, and long-term beneficial to visitors who desire a vehicle free beach experience’’. The agency does not 

point out that the vast majority of visitors are ORV users, or that the majority of 

those that are not ORV users are indifferent to ORV access, and that the visitors 

desiring a vehicle free beach experience had many such miles available prior to the 

Rule. 

Economic Impact 

The negative visitor experience as a result of the Rule is directly responsible for 

the substantial economic impact felt in the eight villages on Hatteras and Ocracoke 

Islands. For a tourist based economy, the math is simple—No Visitors = No Business. 

When the Department of the Interior and National Park Service courted the original property owners to join in to the movement to create the Seashore, they were 

quick to point out the financial windfall that would be enjoyed by the villagers 

through the development of visitor services. With more than a bit of initial hesitancy and suspicion, the villagers eventually donated or sold their land, accepted the 

Park Service’s encouragement and built the infrastructure to support tourism. 

Today, all businesses on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands are directly or indirectly 

driven by tourism. 

Springtime visitation has suffered for the past five years due to access closures 

implemented under the temporary consent decree and is suffering even more this 

year due to the more extensive closures in the Final Rule. 

Fall visitation, which is always threatened by the possibility of tropical storms 

and hurricanes, will now suffer due to new permanent closures and procedures 

under the Final Rule. 

With both the spring and fall shoulder seasons impacted by the Rule, businesses 

once prosperous are now struggling to survive. (Historically, 47% of visitation to 

Cape Hatteras occurred in the months of June, July and August. Conversely, 53% 

occurred in the other nine months.) Many have already failed. Unless relief is provided from the Rule, the only question is how many more will follow. 

Seven-hundred twelve businesses, 3,117 weekly rental properties and 225 charter 

boats are found on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. All directly or indirectly exist 

for the tourist business. All have or will experience reduced income. All have or will 

have to survive with fewer employees, shorter hours for staff, and longer hours and 

hardships for the owners. Today, the unemployment rate in Dare County is 19% 

compared to 10% in 2008. Hyde County’s unemployment rate has gone from 8% to 

13%. If statistics were available, I’m sure the Islands unemployment rates would 

be even worse than their parent counties. 

A few examples of what businesses have already experienced over the past five 

years include: 

• Wayne Clark, owner of Edwards of Ocracoke Rooms and Cottages in 

Ocracoke, has lost 15% of his spring business over the past two years. 

• Bob Eakes, owner of Red Drum Tackle in Buxton, has lost 55% of annual 

business since 2007 and now has three employees rather than ten. 

• Frank Folb, owner of Frank and Fran’s Fisherman’s Friend tackle shop in 

Avon, had a 20% drop in business the first year of the consent decree and 

further drops since. 

• Anne Bowers, owner of Indian Town Gallery in Frisco, has lost 70% of her 

March business due in part to the absence of springtime fishermen who always want to buy a ‘‘guilt’’ gift for their wives and girlfriends. 

• I have experienced a 30% loss in my annual business at the Lighthouse Service Center and Lighthouse Auto Parts in Buxton. Under the consent decree 

when the beaches closed in the spring, my business dropped. When the beaches reopened in August, my business improved. The beaches are already closed 

this year. It remains to be seen what will happen in the fall since many 

beaches will never reopen under the Rule. 

Many of the business owners on Hatteras and Ocracoke scratch their heads and 

comment with bitterness that although the federal government has a goal of job creation, elsewhere it appears to have a goal of job elimination here. 

28 

A timely example of the visitor and economic impact will occur this weekend, 

April 28th and 29th. For 26 years, fishermen added their names to the waiting list 

for one of the 600 spots in the annual fishing tournament sponsored by the 4–Plus 

club of Richmond, Virginia. Last year, the participation level fell below the 600 maximum to 550 for the first time ever. As of Wednesday, only 373 have registered for 

this year’s event. Those choosing not to participate have cited the new fees and lack 

of access as the reasons they will not return. The 4 Plus tournament is the first 

of six long-standing annual surf fishing tournaments at the Seashore. What will 

happen at the remaining five? 

What H.R. 4094 means to us 

H.R. 4094 will replace the destructive Final Rule with the Interim Plan vetted 

and originally implemented in 2007 on a temporary basis. This Plan will restore 

much of the access and recreational opportunities denied the American public under 

the Rule, while continuing to protect the Seashore’s wildlife and other natural resources. 

H.R. 4094 will establish guidelines to ensure punishing and unnecessary closures 

and restrictions will not be re-created in the future as new rules are promulgated. 

H.R. 4094 will ensure that, as new rules are promulgated, species protection will 

be instituted based on peer-reviewed science. 

H.R 4094 will further demonstrate the importance of public access to Federal 

lands for recreational use in appropriate traditional and historical manners. 

Through the passage of the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012 (H.R. 4089) on April 

17th,the House recognized the importance of angler access to Federal lands for recreational use. 

H.R. 4094 will not require any new appropriations, and, through a reduction in 

administrative complexity, may offer an opportunity for personnel and construction 

savings over that anticipated by the Rule. 

Finally, H.R. 4094 will ensure that, in the future, the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore Recreational Area will be managed such that 

• The Seashore’s wildlife and other natural resources will be protected without 

unnecessarily restricting public access, use and enjoyment, and 

• Traditional, cultural, recreational and commercial values so important to the 

visiting public and residents will be respected and maintained. 

I urge you to support the residents and visitors of the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore Recreational Area by passing H.R. 4094. 

Thank you Congressman Jones for introducing this legislation, and thank you Mr. 

Chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify on this critical issue. 

Additional Information 

The Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (CHAPA) is a project of the 

Outer Banks Preservation Association. The following organizations support the access positions that have been developed and presented by CHAPA. 

• North Carolina Beach Buggy Association (NCBBA) 

• Cape Hatteras Anglers Club 

• Dare County Board of Commissioners 

• Hyde County Board of Commissioners 

• American Sportfishing Association (ASA) 

• United Mobile Access Preservation Alliance (UMAP) 

• United Four Wheel Drive Associations 

• Watersports Industry Association, Inc. 

• Recreational Fishing Alliance 

• Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 

• Dare County Tourism Board 

• Ocracoke Civic and Business Association 

• Hatteras Village Civic Association 

• Avon Property Owners Association 

• Assateague Mobile Sportsfishermen Association 

• New Jersey Beach Buggy Association 

• Long Island Beach Buggy Association 

• Rhode Island Mobile Sportsfishermen 

• Davis Island Fishing Federation 

• Massachusetts Beach Buggy Association 

• Virginia Coastal Access Now 

• Virginia Beach Anglers Club 

• Tidewater Anglers Club 

• Delaware Mobil Surf Fishermen 

29 

• Farragut Striper Club 

• Association of Surf Angling Clubs 

• CCA of North Carolina 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Let’s turn to the other area of concern, the 

oversight portion that deals with what is happening in Florida. 

First to Mr. Wright, Kenneth Wright, who is the Vice Chairman 

of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Same 5- 

minute rule, please. 


73982.002.eps

If the Environment.'ll Groups 

are sllc«!ssful in denying 

vehicular ac«!ss to the beaches, 

how will our Veterans, 

those with disabilities &. 

Seniors enjoy the beaches? 

® 

® 

® 

Pedestrian 

ACCl\~) 

No Vt'h iclcs 

No Pets 

1';0 "ites 

while in his teens, Truman Joyne r 

voluntee red his services to defend his 

country in a land he had neve r seen. His 

government sent him to the beach, OMAHA 

After following General Patton across Europe 

he was hospitalized with severe frost bite to 

his feet. A decision to not amputate was 

welcomed and after rehabilitation he 

returned to America to lead a fu ll and 

productive life. Late in life the injuries 

suffered in WW II slowly destroyed his ability 

to walk without assistance. Now he had to 

rely on his son's care to visit his favorite 

American beach, Cape Hatteras. Instead he 

was denied access to his favorite beach after 

giving so much on a foreign beach. Truman 

served in Europe a long t ime ago but the 

injustice to him continues today to our 

returning vets and Americans with 

disabilities. 

The Park Service showed how they feel about 

viSitor access shortly after the Final Rule was 

promulgated. Thanks to Congressman Jones, 

these signs we re late r replaced with others 

that were less uncaring for public safety 
30 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. WRIGHT, VICE CHAIRMAN, 

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Mr. WRIGHT. Good morning, Chairman Bishop and Ranking 

Member and members of the Subcommittee, and particularly the 

good Congressman from the great State of Florida, Congressman 

Rivera. And I appreciate the comments made by the earlier Congress Members on the previous panel. 

My name is Ken Wright. I am the Vice Chair of the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which I will refer to as the 

FWC. We are the agency responsible for managing fish and wildlife 

resources in the State of Florida. And I appreciate the opportunity 

to address our concerns regarding the development of a new general management plan for the Biscayne National Park. 

Located only 30 miles from downtown Miami, this park is truly 

a national and State treasure. Fishing, boating, diving, wildlife 

viewing, or just basking in the Florida sunshine have long been 

longstanding traditions of citizens of South Florida and countless 

visitors even from around the world. The recreational activities 

within the park provide a substantial economic driver for South 

Florida, which creates a ripple effect throughout the State of Florida as an economic stimulus. 

I am here to express the view that the State of Florida and my 

agency are essential partners with the Federal Government in 

making sure the park will be available to be enjoyed for generations to come. We know from our experience that in order to 

achieve our goals, public access and recreation must be sustained. 

And, of course, it must be sustained in a sustainable manner. 

There must be a balance between accessibility and appropriate 

management. 

We in Florida and particularly the Florida FWC have many 

years of experience, and we are confident that public enjoyment of 

natural resources can be balanced with resource protection. This 

approach should recognize and respect traditional activities like 

boating and fishing as the critical fabric to resource conservation 

and should not be taken away from the public when less and more 

effective options are readily available. 

I have a number of points to make. 

We are concerned that the preferred alternative for a new plan 

will unnecessarily prohibit fishing, both recreational and commercial, in a 10,000-plus-acre marine reserve zone. While this area 

constitutes 7 percent of the entire water area of the park, as has 

been noted, it is some of our most popular and productive fishing 

grounds in the park. This prohibition will have a negative impact 

on public use and the local economy, yet there are no efforts to try 

less restrictive management strategies. 

These actions lack sufficient scientific basis. They are based 

largely on anecdotal and intuitive beliefs of expected outcomes. 

Studies relied upon are from much different ecological situations, 

much different in scale and different in stress factors. The plan includes broad assumptions but no analysis or metrics for their support. 

Management of wide-ranging fishery stocks must be addressed 

on a much larger and broader scale than simply the park area to 

31 

be successful, along with appropriate monitoring and with regulation. Such systems are in place in Florida. 

The plan states no-fishing zones are effective for managing coral 

reef fisheries and that less restrictive options would be difficult to 

enforce. It is disturbing that these statements clearly pertain to 

fisheries management yet are made without recognition of the provision in an MOU between the park and the Florida FWC that 

states no-take areas shall be for, quote, ‘‘other than sound fisheries 

management’’ and without recognition of the fact that Florida FWC 

is the agency that provides the majority of the boating and resource law enforcement within the park. And we don’t believe that 

less restrictive options would be any more difficult to enforce than 

a no-take zone. 

The input of boaters and anglers provided throughout the process 

has essentially been ignored. Nor did the Park Service adequately 

engage the State of Florida nor the FWC in the process of selecting 

the preferred alternative, particularly with regard to a fishing 

management issue. The preferred alternative is inconsistent with 

our coastal management program, and it ignores the role that the 

FWC and the State of Florida would have in this process. 

We are disappointed that they proposed to take the no-take zone 

action without adequately considering less impactive alternatives. 

We are cautiously optimistic that if we are able to continue to work 

with the Park Service, we have experience, Mr. Chairman and 

Members, in managing fish resources and would love to continue 

to do so, but we don’t think this closure is necessary. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 

Statement of Kenneth W. Wright, Vice-Chair, Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC), on ‘‘Access Denied: Turning Away 

Visitors to National Parks’’ 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is the agency responsible for managing fish and wildlife resources for the State of Florida. Ken 

Wright, Vice-Chair of FWC will address the agency’s concerns regarding the development of a new General Management Plan for Biscayne National Park (Park), 

Florida. 

Background 

Located only 30 miles from downtown Miami, the Park is truly a national and 

state treasure boasting beautiful clear blue waters, extensive coral reefs, amazing 

marine life, a variety of sea birds, and rare hardwood hammock islands. People flock 

to the Park to enjoy a wide array of outdoor recreational experiences. Fishing, boating, diving, wildlife viewing, or just basking in the Florida sunshine are long standing traditions for citizens of south Florida and countless visitors from around the 

world. Recreational activities in the Park are a substantial economic driver for south 

Florida, creating a ripple effect of economic stimulus across the entire state. 

The Park is currently operating under a General Management Plan (GMP) that 

was completed in 1983. The National Park Service (NPS) is revising and updating 

the GMP to better address current and future conditions and various management 

challenges. The new GMP proposes alternatives for management of the Park for the 

next 20 or more years. The FWC has significant concerns with the management actions that are proposed in the GMP by the NPS, but are hopeful and guardedly optimistic that these concerns can be resolved through further coordination with the 

NPS. 

Overview 

The FWC takes stewardship of the natural resources and public interest in this 

Park very seriously. The FWC recognizes that the State of Florida is an essential 

32 

partner with the Federal Government in making sure the Park will be appreciated 

and enjoyed by generations to come. Floridians and particularly the citizens of south 

Florida have the keenest interest and the most at stake when it comes to the future 

of this wonderful Park. 

To achieve these goals, public access and recreation must be sustained and must 

be sustainable. The Park must be managed carefully to maintain the integrity and 

diversity of the natural features that are so attractive. The good news is through 

many years of experience and scientific study, it has been proven that public enjoyment of natural resources can be readily balanced with resource protection by using 

a measured approach and proper management tools. A measured approach must 

recognize and respect traditional activities like boating and fishing as critical to the 

very fabric of resource conservation and restoration in the Park, and should not be 

taken away from the public when less restrictive and less intrusive options are readily available. 

The following are five key points that summarize the FWC’s concerns. It should 

be noted that a ‘‘no-take zone’’ is a term that is used interchangeably in this document with a ‘‘Marine Reserve Zone’’. A ‘‘Marine Reserve Zone’’ is the term used by 

the Park to implement a no-take area, wherein all fishing activities are prohibited. 

Point one: The GMP states that no-take zones (i.e., Marine Reserve Zones) are 

more effective for managing coral reef fisheries populations than other less restrictive options, and further states that less restrictive options would be difficult to enforce. It is highly troubling that such statements are clearly all about fisheries management and are made without recognition of a provision in the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between the NPS and the FWC that only agrees to no-take 

areas under the GMP process for purposes ‘‘other than sound fisheries management’’, and without recognition of the fact that the FWC is the primary provider 

of resource and boating law enforcement support in the Park. 

Point two: The Marine Reserve Zone included in the preferred alternative for the 

new GMP, will unnecessarily prohibit all recreational and commercial fishing in a 

10,522 acre area. The GMP notes that the Marine Reserve Zone would represent 

only 7% of the entire water area of the Park, but fails to include that the Zone 

would encompass some of the most popular and productive fishing grounds in the 

Park. Furthermore, the Marine Reserve Zone will have significant negative impacts 

on public use and the local economy and was proposed without serious consideration 

of less restrictive management strategies. 

Point three: There is insufficient scientific basis to support fisheries closures included in the preferred alternative. The GMP cites scientific studies relative to restoration of coral reef systems, but these studies were done in much different ecological situations, on a much different scale, and do not have the same environmental 

conditions or stress factors. It is troubling that the GMP includes broad assumptions 

regarding the effectiveness of no fishing zones but includes no analyses, metrics, or 

any other quantifiable measures to support these statements. Moreover, there is no 

consideration given to the fact that management of wide ranging fisheries stocks 

must be addressed on a much broader scale than the Park to be successful using 

more a comprehensive system of monitoring and regulation. Such a system is already in place for the coastal waters of the Atlantic. 

Point four: The input and interests of boaters and anglers provided in good faith 

during the GMP planning process and prior to selection of the preferred alternative 

were not adequately considered by NPS. In addition, the NPS did not adequately 

engage the State of Florida and the FWC in the process of selecting the preferred 

alternative, particularly regarding the matter of fisheries management and associated restrictions. This concern is amplified by the fact that since 1970, the State 

of Florida has conveyed a significant amount of acreage to the NPS to be incorporated into the Park, and further amplified by the fact that the NPS agreed 

through the MOU to share responsibilities and authorities regarding fisheries management with the FWC formalized in a Fishery Management Plan. 

Point five: Implementing the preferred alternative would be inconsistent with 

Florida’s federally approved Coastal Management Program, and therefore inconsistent pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act passed by the United State 

Congress. The Park has not acknowledged the right of the State of Florida to manage its fish and wildlife resources in a consistent manner as provided for by the 

Coastal Zone Management Act. Additionally, the Park has also not adhered to the 

cooperative nature of the MOU that, if followed, would likely have avoided inconsistencies with the Florida Coastal Management Program. 

It is important to note that the FWC has been engaging in constructive dialogue 

with the NPS regarding fisheries management issues contained in the GMP, but 

only since the release of the GMP to the public. The FWC has offered a very workable solution that honors the cooperative commitments and recognizes the shared 

33 

goals and responsibilities of the two levels of government. The FWC proposes that 

the elements of the GMP regarding no-take zones and other fisheries management 

issues be withdrawn from the GMP, and alternatively evaluated as part of the Fishery Management Plan development process. This would allow the agencies to address these issues in a collaborative and transparent manner in coordination with 

interested stakeholders, and would allow the GMP to move forward without delay. 

Supporting Information 

A. Memorandum of Understanding: Fishery Management Plan and fisheries management coordination 

In 2002 and subsequently in 2007, the FWC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Park to ‘‘facilitate the management, protection, and scientific study of fish and aquatic resources’’ within the Park ‘‘by improving communication, cooperation and coordination’’ between the FWC and the Park (Appendix 

A). The MOU provides relevant background information, lists objectives to be 

achieved, outlines regulatory authorities, and details expectations of work on behalf 

of both the FWC and the Park for the mutual benefit of the aquatic resources within 

the Park. One of the tasks identified in the MOU is the joint development of a comprehensive fisheries management plan. The purpose of the Fishery Management 

Plan is to provide for the long-term management of fish and aquatic resources within the Park, separately yet complementary to a GMP. 

The development of the Fishery Management Plan is ongoing, and the GMP specifically states: 

‘‘Due to this ongoing planning process, the GMP will not address fisheries 

management in its alternatives’’ (page 16 of the GMP). In fact, however, Alternatives 2 through 5 of the GMP do address fisheries management, either 

directly or indirectly, by proposing to establish zones where fishing activities would be prohibited, access would be limited, additional permits would 

be required, and limitations or prohibitions would be placed on the use of 

harvesting gear, internal combustion motors, and vessel type, size and 

speed. All ten of the proposed zones in the GMP manage fishing activities 

in some manner, and the GMP specifically identifies ‘‘managing recreational [and commercial] fishing in the interest of sound conservation’’ as 

a management action in the majority of the zones’ descriptions (pages 48– 

58 of the GMP). 

In addition to addressing fishery management issues in the GMP, the proposed 

management actions within the GMP have not been jointly evaluated with the 

FWC, nor was the agency consulted in advance of these actions being proposed and 

released to the public for comment. This is also in direct conflict with the MOU, 

which states: 

Article III—Statement of Work: 

A. FWC and the Park agree to: 

. . .2. Acknowledge that the FWC will play a crucial role in implementing 

and promulgating new regulations as may be deemed appropriate, as well 

as take other management actions to achieve the mutual objectives for the 

management of fisheries within the boundaries of the Park for the term of 

this MOU. However, the agencies agree to consult with each other on any 

actions that they may propose to be taken to conserve or protect fish populations and other aquatic resources within Park boundaries or to further 

regulate the fisheries. 

. . .5. Consult with each other and jointly evaluate the commercial and recreational harvest of fishery resources within the Park. Such consultation 

and evaluation, as set forth in the enabling legislation establishing the 

Park, should include a full review of all commercial and recreational fishery 

practices, harvest data, permitting requirements, techniques and other pertinent information for the purposes of determining to what extent mutually 

agreed upon fishery management goals are being met within the Park and 

to determine what additional management actions, if any, are necessary to 

achieve stated management goals. 

The enabling legislation establishing the Park and the MOU executed in good 

faith clearly call for consultation and coordination with the State of Florida/FWC 

regarding fisheries management. The Fishery Management Plan is the most appropriate tool to support this consultation and coordination. The proposed regulatory 

actions in the GMP that affect fishing activities combined with the lack of advanced 

agency coordination make it abundantly evident that the Park’s regulatory strategy 

is to address fisheries management issues within the context of the GMP, and outside of the framework of the MOU and the Fishery Management Plan. 

34 

Accordingly, the FWC has respectfully called for the NPS to honor these requirements and commitments by withdrawing fishery- and fishing-related provisions 

from the GMP, and working closely with the FWC and stakeholders to develop proposals that reflect a better balance between conservation and recreation in the Fishery Management Plan. 

B. Memorandum of Understanding: Use of unnecessarily restrictive management actions 

The FWC and the Park have differing viewpoints regarding the use of marine reserves or no-take areas as a management strategy. This was specifically addressed 

in the MOU as follows: 

WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree to seek the least restrictive management actions necessary to fully achieve mutual management goals for the 

fishery resources of the Park and adjoining areas. Furthermore, both parties recognize the FWC’s belief that marine reserves (no-take areas) are 

overly restrictive and that less-restrictive management measures should be 

implemented during the duration of this MOU. Consequently, the FWC 

does not intend to implement a marine reserve (no-take area) in the waters 

of the Park during the duration of this MOU, unless both parties agree it 

is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the FWC and the Park recognize that 

the Park intends to consider the establishment of one or more marine reserves (no-take areas) under its General Management Planning process for 

purposes other than sound fisheries management in accordance with Federal authorities, management policies, directives and executive orders. . . 

The Park did not seek the least restrictive management actions to accomplish 

management goals, and did not propose a Marine Reserve Zone in the GMP ‘‘for 

purposes other than sound fisheries management.’’ The GMP states that the proposed Marine Reserve Zone ‘‘would be about 7% of the waters of the Park, and less 

than 13% of the offshore areas of the park’’ (page 82 of the GMP). Whether intentional or not, this reference to ‘‘waters’’ and ‘‘offshore areas’’ instead of actual ‘‘fishing areas’’ creates the illusion that the proposed Marine Reserve Zone is a very 

small area in comparison to the rest of the Park, ‘‘. . .while not being so large as 

to completely eliminate the opportunities for fishing any of the park’s reef areas’’ 

(page 327 of the GMP). The reality is that the proposed Marine Reserve Zone includes some of the most popular reef fishing areas within the Park. Combined with 

nine other proposed Zones that will restrict or eliminate fishing opportunities either 

directly or indirectly, these actions will have a serious negative impact on fishing 

within the Park. The management actions proposed in the GMP represent the most 

extreme tools available for resource management in these selected areas within the 

Park, ignoring alternative ways to achieve desired resource improvements without 

sacrificing the public’s ability to access portions of the Park for fishing. 

C. Lack of information to support proposed management actions 

The FWC recognizes that the NPS has different but complementary goals for 

managing Florida’s fish and wildlife resources located within the Park’s boundaries. 

The FWC also recognizes the significant value of the habitat resources within the 

Park to recreational and commercial fisheries, and the need to protect them. While 

the FWC supports sound resource management within the Park, the FWC cannot 

support how certain management actions in the GMP have been developed and proposed because of the lack of scientific evidence and lack of consideration of public 

access and use. 

1. The Science 

The Park has failed to provide the scientific evidence necessary to support the 

need for a complete fishery closure in the Marine Reserve Zone. For example, data 

or analyses demonstrating the conservation benefits achieved by a complete fishery 

closure as compared to other, less restrictive management measures (e.g., catch-andrelease fishing, size or slot limits, and closed seasons) were never presented in the 

GMP or specifically discussed with the FWC before releasing the GMP. Instead, the 

GMP states: 

Scientific data indicates that no-take zones are more effective at reducing 

mortality, especially for reef species, than other methodologies, including 

catch and release, slot limits, etc. Additionally, a catch and release zone 

would be difficult to enforce. Therefore, within this zone, recreational and 

commercial fishing would be prohibited to encourage long-term protection 

of the reef ecosystem (page 82 of the GMP). 

Since no data, analyses, or any other quantifiable measure is provided to support 

these statements, it is impossible for the FWC to evaluate their scientific credibility. 

Furthermore, the FWC provides the boating and resources enforcement in the Park. 

35 

Enforcement of less restrictive management measures are no more difficult for the 

agency to enforce than no-take zones—both require officers to patrol and check boaters/anglers to ensure compliance with whatever the regulation may be. 

The FWC is also seriously concerned that, although the proposed Marine Reserve 

Zone is supposed to provide ‘‘. . .beneficial impacts on fisheries, and submerged 

aquatic communities. . .’’ (page iv of the GMP), no data or other scientific evidence 

is provided to evaluate whether this Zone was designed to provide protection from 

the full suite of known threats (e.g., water quality and other non-fishing, humancaused stressors) that can affect the biodiversity and long-term viability of coral reef 

ecosystems. It is well documented in scientific literature that non-fishing activities 

such as diving and snorkeling can have a significant impact on reef communities, 

yet the Park is not proposing to manage these activities and is only focusing on fishing activities. Had the options for managing each threat been the subject of appropriate assessments, it would likely have been apparent that area closures, such as 

the proposed Marine Reserve Zone, represents an inappropriate or at least an inefficient mechanism for the management, precautionary or otherwise, of many recognized threats, including those from fishing and diving. 

Common ‘‘unintended consequences’’ (e.g., potential impacts caused by displacement of fishing effort to areas outside the no-take zone) of implementing marine notake zones that are well documented in the scientific literature, also seem to have 

not been evaluated by the Park. For example, the Park’s Preferred Alternative, 

which includes the proposed Marine Reserve Zone, lacks any evaluation of the potential negative impacts caused by increased fishing effort outside the Zone by fishers displaced to nearby areas where fishing would continue to be allowed. The GMP 

states: 

Even though fishing pressure may increase outside this zone [emphasis 

added], the expected increase in size and abundance of fish within the Marine Reserve Zone is expected to have a ‘‘spillover’’ effect outside the zone, 

as documented in other Marine Reserve Zones worldwide (page 230 of the 

GMP). 

Again, no analyses, metrics, or any other quantifiable measure is provided to support this statement, much less how it relates to the specific no-take zone being proposed in the Park. What the Park is presenting as the science supporting their proposed management actions is that studies of no-take zones in the Florida Keys have 

shown conservation benefits to coral reef ecosystems, including the reef fish communities therein, to a ‘‘more natural state.’’ In other words, if no-take zones are good 

for the Florida Keys, they must be good for Biscayne Bay. This kind of extrapolation 

should not be made without working through a comprehensive and collaborative 

analysis of all factors influencing the health and recovery of coral reef ecosystems 

in the Park to provide a valid scientific basis for evaluation of a number of management options that ultimately demonstrate: (1) the conservation benefits likely to be 

achieved by management actions; and (2) whether the same conservation benefits 

could be achieved by applying less restrictive management actions. 

In summary, the Park has failed to provide the scientific evidence necessary to 

support the proposed Marine Reserve Zone. Furthermore, the proposed Marine Reserve Zone affects fishing practices that are already well-managed by state and federal agencies, according to well-established and scientifically credible conservation 

standards. The FWC is concerned the focus on restricting fishing and boating is diverting attention from the suite of real threats potentially affecting both protected 

and unprotected areas in the Park including water quality issues. 

2. Public Access and Use 

The GMP proposes to implement zones that have the potential to significantly 

limit access by fishers through vessel operation (e.g., vessel speed, vessel size and 

motor type). Strategies such as slow-speed or non-combustion engines zones used to 

protect resources can be important management tools. On the other hand, these 

strategies also have the potential to impact resources if not designed to avoid or 

minimize access limitation. It is a commonly held misconception that fishers continue to have access to areas for fishing after slow-speed or non-combustion engine 

management strategies are implemented, because in theory fishers can still pole, 

troll, or operate a vessel at limited speed in order to fish. In reality, many fishers 

do not utilize these areas because of factors that significantly contribute to accessibility. These factors include public and private boat launch locations, currents, tides, 

prevailing winds, and how to get in and out of a zone quickly in the event of bad 

weather or with enough time to fish a tide. As mentioned above, access limitation 

may result in concentrating resource impacts in adjacent areas that are not managed under these strategies, or concentrating resource impacts in smaller, accessible 

36 

portions of the areas managed under these strategies because factors that contribute 

to accessibility were not considered during the planning process. 

D. ‘‘Who has management authority in Biscayne National Park?’’ 

The issue of management authority of fish and wildlife in the Park has been discussed by the FWC and the NPS for many years. When only considering the state 

and federal laws that apply to the establishment of the Park, it is a situation the 

two agencies have simply had to agree to disagree. 

The current authority issue has arisen in response to the State of Florida’s review 

of the draft version of the Park’s GMP under the federal Coastal Zone Management 

Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act, passed by Congress and implemented by 

NOAA, requires that activities conducted by federal agencies (or on behalf of federal 

agencies) affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a state’s coastal 

zone be fully consistent with each state’s coastal management program. Each state’s 

coastal management program must be approved by NOAA. Florida’s approved 

Coastal Management Program allows the State to review federal activities affecting 

the land or water uses or natural resources of Florida for consistency with Florida’s 

Coastal Management Program. 

The management actions proposed by the Park in the GMP are not fully consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. Specifically, the Park has 

not fully taken into account the right of the State of Florida to manage its fish and 

wildlife resources in a consistent manner as provided for by the Coastal Zone Management Act. If the Park had adhered to the cooperative nature of the MOU, it 

would have likely avoided inconsistencies with the Florida Coastal Management 

Program. 

The Solution 

The FWC is disappointed that the Park chose to propose the most restrictive management actions without adequately considering less restrictive management options that would likely accomplish the same goals. The solution moving forward is 

for the NP to follow the ‘‘Purpose of the Plan’’ as stated in the GMP: ‘‘Ensure that 

this foundation for decision making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the National Park Service leadership after an 

adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses 

of action’’ (page 6 of the GMP). This can be accomplished by removing fisheries management issues from the GMP, and instead provide for an evaluation of alternative 

fisheries management strategies in the Fishery Management Plan developed in consultation with the FWC and interested stakeholders. This will not delay finalizing 

the GMP, and it will allow for a more balanced approach to management. 

Appendix A 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between 

the State of Florida, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

and 

the National Park Service, Biscayne National Park 

NPS Agreement Number G5250H0083 

ARTICLE I—BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 

WHEREAS, The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) is to facilitate 

the management, protection and scientific study of fish and aquatic resources within 

the National Park Service, Biscayne National Park (hereinafter referred to as the 

Park) by improving communication, cooperation and coordination between the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the 

FWC) and the Park; and 

WHEREAS, Biscayne National Monument was established by Congress in 1968 

‘‘in order to preserve and protect for the education, inspiration, recreation, and enjoyment of present and future generations a rare combination of terrestrial, marine, 

and amphibious life in a tropical setting of great natural beauty’’ (PL 90–606). The 

Monument was later expanded in 1974 (PL 93–477), and again in 1980 (PL 96–287), 

to its current size of 173,000 acres (270 square miles), when it was also redesignated 

as the Park, where excellent opportunities are provided for fishing, snorkeling, 

scuba diving, boating, canoeing, kayaking, windsurfing and swimming; and 

37 

WHEREAS, the State of Florida conveyed sovereign submerged lands to the 

United States in 19.70 to become part of Biscayne National Monument; and 

WHEREAS, the Park is made up predominantly of submerged lands (95 percent), 

and may be divided generally into three major environments: coral reef, estuarine 

and terrestrial. The boundaries of the Park begin at the west mangrove shoreline, 

extend east to Biscayne Bay (including seagrass communities and shoals), the keys 

(including hardwood hammocks, mangrove wetlands, sandy beaches and rocky intertidal areas), the reef, and continue to their easternmost extent at a contiguous 60- 

foot depth contour. The northern boundary of the Park is near the southern extent 

of Key Biscayne, while the southern boundary is near the northern extent of Key 

Largo, adjacent to the Barnes Sound and Card Sound areas; and 

WHEREAS, Biscayne Bay has also been designated by the State of Florida as an 

Aquatic Preserve, Outstanding Florida Water, Outstanding National Resource 

Water (pending ratification of State water quality standards) and lobster sanctuary 

under Florida Law, and by Dade County as an aquatic park and conservation area; 

and 

WHEREAS, both FWC and the Park have responsibilities under Federal and 

State laws and regulations that affect fish and other aquatic resources within the 

Park; and 

WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree that ‘‘when possible and practicable, stocks 

of fish shall be managed as a biological unit’’ (Chapter 370.025(d) Florida Statutes). 

This statement is intended to recognize that measures to end overfishing and rebuild stocks are most effective when implemented over the range of the biological 

stock; however, it is not intended to preclude implementation of additional or more 

restrictive management measures within the Park than in adjacent State waters as 

a means of achieving mutual objectives; and 

WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree that properly regulated commercial and recreational fishing will be continued within the boundaries of the Park. FWC and the 

Park recognize and acknowledge that commercial and recreational fishing constitutes activities of statewide importance that benefit the health and welfare of the 

people of the State of Florida. The parties also recognize and acknowledge that preserving the nationally significant resources of the Park to a high conservation and 

protection standard to be agreed upon by both parties in the fishery management 

plan for all citizens to enjoy is of statewide as well as national importance, and as 

such, will also benefit the health and welfare of the people of the State of Florida; 

and 

WHEREAS, FWC and the Park agree to seek the least restrictive management 

actions necessary to fully achieve mutual management goals for the fishery resources of the Park and adjoining areas. Furthermore, both parties recognize the 

FWC’s belief that marine reserves (no-take areas) are overly restrictive and that 

less-restrictive management measures should be implemented during the duration 

of this MOD. Consequently, the FWC does not intend to implement a marine reserve (no-take area) in the waters of the Park during the duration of this MOD, unless both parties agree it is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the FWC and the 

Park recognize that the Park intends to consider the establishment of one or more 

marine reserves (no-take areas) under its General Management Planning process for 

purposes other than sound fisheries management in accordance with Federal authorities, management policies, directives and executive orders; and 

WHEREAS, both parties wish this MOU to reflect their common goals and intended cooperation and coordination to achieve those goals. 

ARTICLE II—AUTHORITY 

In the Organic Act of 1916, U.S.C. § 1, Congress created the National Park Service 

(NPS) to promote and regulate the National Park System for ‘‘the purpose of conserving the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as would 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ Congress further 

determined, in 16 U.S.C. § la-I, that the authorization of activities within units of 

the National Park System be construed, and the protection, management and administration of national parks be conducted, in the light of high public value and 

integrity of the National Park System. 

The legislation establishing the Park states that the ‘‘Secretary shall preserve and 

administer the park in accordance with the provisions of sections 1 and 2 to 4 of 

this title, as amended and supplemented. The waters within the park shall continue 

to be open to fishing in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida except as 

the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate officials of said State, designates 

species for which, areas and times within which, and methods by which fishing is 

prohibited, limited, or otherwise regulated in the interest of sound conservation to 

38 

achieve the purposes for which the park is established: Provided, that with respect 

to lands donated by the State after the effective date of this Act, fishing shall be 

in conformance with State law.’’ PL 96–287, § 103(a), codified at 16 U.S.C. § 410gg2(a). 

As a unit of the National Park System, the Park is authorized under 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 1–6 to participate in memoranda of understanding that document mutually 

agreed upon policies, procedures and relationships that do not involve funding. 

The FWC was created by Article IV, § 9 of the Florida Constitution and is vested 

with the state’s executive and regulatory authority with respect to freshwater aquatic life, wild animal life and marine life. This authority, directly derived from the 

Constitution, provides the FWC with autonomy to regulate and manage wild animal 

life, freshwater aquatic life and marine life within the State of Florida, which includes the areas encompassed by the Park. 

The FWC is authorized under Chapter 370.103, Florida Statutes, to enter into cooperative agreements with the Federal Government or agencies thereof for the purpose of preserving saltwater fisheries within and without state waters and for the 

purpose of protecting against overfishing, waste, depletion, or any abuse whatsoever. Such authority includes authority to enter into cooperative agreements whereby officers of the FWC are empowered to enforce federal statutes and rules pertaining to fisheries management. 

The regulatory responsibility of the State of Florida with respect to fishing on the 

original Park lands is set forth in section 1 03(a) of PL 96–287 (see above). The regulatory responsibility of the State of Florida with respect to fishing on additional 

lands conveyed to the Park after the effective date of PL 96–287 is set forth in a 

Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Dedication dated December 13, 1985, which contains the following special reservation: ‘‘All rights to fish on 

the waters shall be retained and not transferred to the United States and fishing 

on the waters shall be subject to the laws of the State of Florida.’’ 

NOW, THEREFORE, both parties agree as follows: 

ARTICLE III—STATEMENT OF WORK 

A. FWC and the Park agree to: 

Seek concurrence in meeting their management goals and strive to identify 

means, measures and other interagency actions for the mutual benefit of the aquatic 

resources within Biscayne Bay and the Park. 

Acknowledge that the FWC will play a crucial role in implementing and promulgating new regulations as may be deemed appropriate, as well as take other management actions to achieve the mutual objectives for the management of fisheries 

within the boundaries of the Park for the term of this MOD. However, the agencies 

agree to consult with each other on any actions that they may propose to be taken 

to conserve or protect fish populations and other aquatic resources within Park 

boundaries or to further regulate the fisheries. 

Provide for recreational and commercial fishing and opportunities for the angling 

public and other Park visitors to enjoy the natural aquatic environment. 

Manage fisheries within the Park and Biscayne Bay according to applicable Federal and State laws, and in a manner that promotes healthy, self-sustaining fish 

populations and recognizes the biological characteristics and reproductive potential 

of individual species. Desired future conditions for fisheries and visitor experiences 

within the Park will be established cooperatively to further guide fisheries management. 

Consult with each other and jointly evaluate the commercial and recreational harvest of fishery resources within the Park. Such consultation and evaluation, as set 

forth in the enabling legislation establishing the Park, should include a full review 

of all commercial and recreational fishery practices, harvest data, permitting requirements, techniques and other pertinent information for the purposes of determining to what extent mutually agreed upon fishery management goals are being 

met within the Park and to determine what additional management actions, if any, 

are necessary to achieve stated management goals. 

Collaborate on the review and approval of proposals for fisheries stock assessment, site characterization, maintenance or restoration, including scientifically 

based harvest management, species reestablishment, stocking, habitat protection, 

and habitat restoration or rehabilitation. 

Notify each other, as early as possible, of the release of information pertaining 

to the development of agency policies, management plans, statutes, rules and regulations that may affect fisheries and aquatic resource management within the Park 

boundary. 

Share scientific information, field data and observations on Park fishery resources 

and activities affecting those resources, except in situations where the exchange of 

39 

such data would violate State or Federal laws or regulations (e.g. law enforcement 

investigations and confidential landings statistics). The parties will provide each 

other with copies of reports that include results of work conducted within the Park 

or Biscayne Bay. 

Jointly consider proposals for the management and control of exotic (non-indigenous) species, if found to occur within the Park or in adjacent areas, that may pose 

a threat to the integrity of Park resources. Exotic species are those that occur in 

a given place as a result of direct or indirect, deliberate or accidental actions by humans. 

Review and coordinate, on an annual basis, proposals for fisheries and aquatic resources management, research, inventory and monitoring within the Park and Biscayne Bay. Each party will provide prospective researchers with legal notice of agency-specific permitting requirements. Additionally, as a courtesy, and to encourage 

information sharing, the FWC and the Park will provide each other with annual 

summaries of marine and terrestrial research, inventory and monitoring activities 

conducted within and in close proximity to the Park. 

Meet at least once annually and otherwise as needed to coordinate management 

and research activities and exchange information on fish and aquatic resources 

within the Park and Biscayne Bay. 

Recognize that there may be times when the missions of the FWC and the Park 

may differ, and that while efforts will be made to the maximum extent possible to 

cooperate fully and jointly manage fishing within the Park as intended by Congress 

when the Park was established, there may be occasion when the two agencies 

choose to disagree. Such occasions will not be construed, as impasses and every attempt will made to avoid communication barriers and to not jeopardize future working relationships. 

Develop a comprehensive fisheries management plan (hereinafter referred to as 

the Plan) for the long-term management of fish and aquatic resources within the 

Park. The Plan will summarize existing information and ongoing activities, clarify 

agency jurisdiction, roles and responsibilities, identify additional opportunities for 

cooperative management, list key issues, establish management goals and objectives, describe desired future conditions, indicators, performance measures and management triggers, and develop a list of prioritized project statements. Specifically, 

with respect to developing the Plan, the two agencies agree as follows: 

B. The FWC agrees to: 

1. Assist the Park, and play a collaborative role in coordinating with the Park 

and its cooperators, in the development and ongoing review of the Plan. 

2. Provide representation to a technical committee formed to guide interagency fisheries management within Biscayne Bay, including the Park, and 

participate in monthly teleconference calls and meetings as may be scheduled for purposes of steering fisheries management planning project. 

3. Assign staff, including those from the Florida Marine Research Institute, as 

deemed appropriate to assist the Park and its cooperators in developing 

credible project statements or preliminary research proposals. The emphasis 

of such proposals will be to design and prioritize projects intended to meet 

known fisheries data gaps or resource knowledge deficiencies to facilitate 

scientifically based and informed fisheries management decision-and rulemaking. 

4. Provide representation to and support for forming the Scientific Advisory 

Panel for the purposes described in CA below. 

5. Provide access to and support for requests by the Park to existing data and 

information as may be applicable to Biscayne Bay fisheries and aquatic resources, jurisdictions and other pertinent aspects to developing the Plan. 

6. Review and comment upon drafts of the Plan and participate in joint meetings that will be arranged to solicit public opinion and comment concerning 

proposed fisheries management actions and/or alternatives as may be described within the draft Plan; and to review and comment upon any fisheries and aquatic resources issues and alternatives as may be identified 

within the Park’s General Management Plan, also being developed in 2001– 

2002. 

7. Facilitate information exchange and otherwise provide briefings to FWC 

Commissioners as necessary and deemed appropriate by the FWC. 

8. Facilitate information exchange and otherwise provide briefings as may be 

deemed appropriate to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, of 

which FWC’s Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries is a member. 

40 

9. Work with the Park to promulgate or revise existing State and Federal 

rules/regulations as may be jointly identified and recommended within the 

Plan. 

10. As may be provided under State law and FWC policies, and upon full review, comment, revision and concurrence by the FWC, co-sign and endorse 

the Plan. 

C. The Park agrees to: 

Subject to the availability of funds, provide project funding support to cooperators, 

under contractual requirements separate from this MOU and described within an 

approved study plan prepared by NPS, to complete the Plan. 

Secure contractors and cooperation from other fisheries experts to develop and/or 

assist the Park in developing the Plan. These cooperators may include, but are not 

limited to, research fishery biologists, aquatic ecologists and fisheries program managers from the FWC, Tennessee Valley Authority, Everglades National Park, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and the University of Miami—Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. 

Form a technical steering committee comprised of Park personnel as well as those 

cited inC.2 above, and arrange and coordinate monthly teleconference calls and periodic other meetings of this committee as necessary to develop the Plan. 

Arrange and coordinate a Scientific Advisory Panel to review the findings and recommendations contained in the 2001 report entitled ‘‘Site Characterization for Biscayne National Park: Assessment of Fisheries Resources and Habitats,’’ prepared 

under contract for the Park by Dr. Jerald S. Ault, et al. 

Work with the FWC to promulgate or revise existing State and Federal rules/regulations as may be jointly identified and recommended within the Plan. 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, arrange and coordinate public 

meetings, Federal Register Notices, and other requirements associated with preparing an Environmental Impact Statement in conjunction with the Plan. 

Under contractual arrangements separate from this MOU, finance, print, and distribute a reasonable and sufficient number of draft and final copies of the Plan to 

all cooperators and other entities with an expressed or vested interest. 

As requested by the FWC, help conduct or simply attend briefings, presentations 

or other forums concerning fisheries/wildlife management within Biscayne Bay, including the Park. 

Facilitate and encourage the joint publication of press releases and the interchange between parties of all pertinent agency policies and objectives, statutes, 

rules and regulations, and other information required for the wise use and perpetuation of the fisheries resources of the Park. 

Facilitate research permitting to state entities for activities needed to accomplish 

goals identified in the Plan. 

ARTICLE IV—TERMS OF AGREEMENT 

This MOU shall become effective upon signature by all parties hereto, and is executed as of the date of the last of those signatures and shall remain in effect for 

a term of five (5) years unless rescinded as provided in Article IX. It may be reaffirmed and extended for an additional five years. 

This MOU in no way restricts the FWC or the Park from participating in similar 

activities with other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals. 

This MOu is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Any endeavor involving reimbursement or contribution of funds between the Park and the FWC will 

be handled in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures. Such 

endeavors will be set forth in separate written agreements executed by the parties 

and shall be independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority. 

ARTICLE V—KEY OFFICIALS 

A. For Biscayne National Park: 

Superintendent 

Biscayne National Park 

9700 SW 328th Street 

Homestead, FL 33033 B. 

B. For the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission: 

Executive Director 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

620 South Meridian Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32399–1600 

41 

ARTICLE VI—PRIOR APPROVAL 

Not applicable 

ARTICLE VII—REPORTS AND/OR OTHER DELIVERABLES 

Upon request and to the full extent permitted by applicable law, the parties shall 

share with each other final reports of actions involving both parties. 

ARTICLE VIII—PROPERTY UTILIZATION 

Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties, any property furnished by 

one party to the other shall remain the property of the furnishing party. Any property furnished by the Park to the FWC during the performance of this MOU shall 

be used and disposed of as set forth in Federal property management regulations 

found at 41 C.F.R. Part 102. 

ARTICLE IX—MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION 

Either party may terminate this MOU by providing 60 days advance written notice to the other party. However, following such notice and before termination becomes effective, the parties will attempt to address and resolve the issues that led 

to the issuance of the notice. 

Any disputes that may arise as a result of this MOU shall be subject to negotiation upon written request of either party, and each of the parties agrees to negotiate 

in good faith. The parties shall use their best efforts to conduct such negotiations 

at the lowest organizational level before seeking to elevate a dispute. If the parties 

cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to mediation using 

a neutral acceptable to both parties. Subject to the availability of funds, each party 

will pay an equal share of any costs for mediation services as such costs are incurred. If the dispute cannot be resolved through mediation, it will be elevated to 

a third party acceptable to both the Park and FWC for a final decision. 

This MOU may be reviewed and/or modified at any time upon written agreement 

of the FWC and the Park. 

ARTICLE X—STANDARD CLAUSES 

A. Compliance With Laws 

This MOU is subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Florida, 

and all lawful rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and shall be interpreted accordingly. 

B. Civil Rights 

During the performance of this MOU, the parties agree to abide by the terms of 

the U.S. Department of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the Department)- 

Civil Rights Assurance Certification, non-discrimination and will not discriminate 

against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The participants will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without 

regard to their race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, disabilities, religion, 

age or sex. 

C. Promotions 

The FWC will not publicize or otherwise circulate promotional material (such as 

advertisements, sales brochures, press releases, speeches, still and motion pictures, 

articles, manuscripts, or other publications), which states or implies Governmental, 

Departmental, bureau or Government employee endorsement of a product, service 

or position, which the Department represents. No release of information relating to 

this MOU may state or imply that the Government approves of the FWC’s work 

product, or considers the Department’s work product to be superior to other products or services. 

D. Public Information Release 

The FWC will obtain prior approval from the Park for any public information releases, which refers, to the Department, any bureau, park unit, or employee (by 

name or title), or to this MOU. The specific text, layout, photographs, etc. of the 

proposed release must be submitted with the request for approval. 

E. Liability Provision 

Each party to this agreement will indemnify, save and hold harmless, and defend 

each other against all fines, claims, damages, losses, judgments, and expenses arising out of, or from, any omission or activity of such person organization, its representatives, or employees. During the term of the MOD, the Park will be liable for 

property damage, injury or death caused by the wrongful or negligent act or omission of an employee, agent, or assign of the Park acting within the scope of his or 

42 

her employment under circumstances in which the Park, if a private person, would 

be liable to a claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or 

omission occurred, only to the extent allowable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 

28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. 

ARTICLE XI—SIGNATURES 

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the 

dates set forth below. 

FOR BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK: 

Signature: 

Mark Lewis Superintendent Biscayne National Park 

Date: 

FOR THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION: 

Signature: 

Ken Haddad 

Executive Director 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Date: 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Crook, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KARL CROOK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

CROOK AND CROOK, INC., FLORIDA RESIDENT 

Mr. CROOK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Karl Crook, and I am honored to be 

here to testify before you today. 

I am President and CEO of Crook and Crook Marine and Fishing 

Supplies, which was established by my parents in 1958 in Miami, 

Florida. I have been in the business all my life. For 53 years, my 

company knows that our business is directly tied to and very dependent on the fishery resources that our residents, our visitors, 

and customers enjoy today. We are also dependent on them having 

access—access is key—to our public waters, which is what brings 

me here today. 

Anglers are willing to make sacrifice for the betterment of the resources as long as they are confident that these sacrifices are based 

on strong science, good common sense, and a true desire to improve 

the health of the fisheries they so enjoy today. 

The closures being proposed in Biscayne National Park, specifically the 10,000-acre marine reserve, in the draft general management plan preferred alternative are not based on solid fishery management data and will significantly and unnecessarily close a massive area of park waters. Since we are still in draft form, there is 

still time to make the correct decision and listen to the public, the 

representatives, and the people that know the fisheries of South 

Florida.21Through 35 years of involvement in the marine and fishing community, I am very familiar with the use of the surrounding 

waters and fisheries, including those in Biscayne National Park. 

The National Park Service will tell you that their proposed reserve 

zone is small, only 7 percent of the park. But when you consider 

that it is 35 percent of the most fished areas, it changes that dynamic. This massive closure covers some of the park’s most popular 

and productive fishing areas. The tremendous loss of fishing opportunity is more significant than that 7 percent. 

43 

The National Park Service will also tell you that they are proposing this closure for reasons other than fishery management. But 

once you look a little deeper and you read paragraph and page 

after page, it is clear that this is false. Restricting and prohibiting 

fishing in order to protect fish habitat and rebuild fish stocks is inherently fish management responsibility. Both the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Management Commission and the park’s Fishery Management Plan Stakeholder Working Group have concluded that other 

less restrictive management measures other than a marine reserve 

can and should be implemented in the park. 

By proposing a marine reserve, the National Park Service is casting aside professional and local expertise of fisheries management 

and severing trust with the local boating and sport-fishing community. I contend this is the easy way out but not the best way. 

Where the recreational fishing is having an impact on reefs, 

there are many less restrictive management approaches, like anchoring areas and strong species-by-species fishing regulations, 

which can be put in place to mitigate fishing impact. Closing local 

fisheries’ access will substantially impact hundreds of jobs and livelihoods in our local economy and beyond. The National Park Service should stop and reconsider the proposed marine reserve in the 

general management plan and instead work with the FWC and 

local stakeholders to address fishery resources challenges within 

the fisheries management plan. 

By slowing this process down and reevaluating the variety of 

other tools available, I am confident that the plan can be reached 

that addresses the resource challenges in the park while still allowing the public to access the public park’s waters and fisheries. 

Please consider in your reading of the original memorandum of 

understanding between the State of Florida and the intent of the 

State when the land was given to the Park Service. Please also 

read the working group proposal of 2004. Considering all that is 

being discussed before you today, it becomes apparent that most of 

the working group proposals have been ignored. Both the documents are attached in my written testimony. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you 

here today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crook follows:] 

Statement of Karl Crook, President and CEO, Crook and Crook Inc., DBA 

Crook and Crook Fishing and Marine Supplies, on ‘‘Access Denied: 

Turning Away Visitors to National Parks’’ 

Good Morning, my name is Karl Crook and I am honored to have been asked to 

testify before the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands regarding the proposed General Management Plan for Biscayne National Park located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. I 

have been a resident of Miami Dade County since 1957 when my parents moved 

from New England to Miami. Having been born in 1956, I can say I have spent my 

entire life close to, or literally on, the waters of Biscayne National Park. My parents 

and I resided on a 34 foot boat at Dinner Key Marina when I was a child. 

In 1958 my parents founded Crook and Crook Fishing and Marine Supplies in Coconut Grove Florida. I grew up in the business and took over full reign of Crook 

and Crook upon my mother’s passing in 1985. I have run the business as a sole proprietor up to today. 

I am currently an active member of the Dade County chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association and the American Sports fishing Association. I currently serve 

44 

on the Board of Directors of the Bob Lewis Memorial Fishing Tournament and the 

University of Miami Hall of Fame Fishing Tournament. As a company, Crook and 

Crook sponsors and supports fishing tournaments and fishing related children charities in and around our community and abroad to promote and support recreational 

fishing. 

Having been in business for 53 years, my company has learned that our business 

is directly tied to, and dependent on, the fisheries resources that our customers 

enjoy. In order to serve the anglers and boaters that shop in our stores and our online catalog, we must first support creating healthy and abundant fisheries for them 

to pursue. We also depend on them having access to our public waters, which is 

what brings me here today to talk about a major threat to fishing access in on of 

south Florida’s prime fishing areas—Biscayne National Park. 

Biscayne National Park is a regional treasure. It deserves the proper attention 

and controlled use to sustain and protect the natural beauty and resources contained within the park. Through 35 years of involvement with the marine and fishing community, I am very familiar with the uses of the surrounding waters and fisheries with respect to recreational fishing, tourism and to somewhat of a lesser degree, commercial fishing. 

Anglers are willing to make sacrifices for the betterment of the resource, as long 

as they are confident that these sacrifices are based on strong science and a true 

desire to improve the health of the fisheries we enjoy. However, the closures being 

proposed in Biscayne National Park—specifically the 10,522 acre marine reserve in 

the draft General Management Plan preferred alternative—are not based on solid 

fisheries management and seem to place undue blame for any and all problems in 

the park on anglers and boaters. 

The National Park Service will tell you that their proposed marine reserve is 

small—only 7 percent of the park—but I can assure you that the word ‘‘small’’ does 

not come close to describing the area at stake. This 16 square mile closure covers 

some of the park’s most popular and productive fishing areas. The tremendous loss 

of fishing opportunity is much more significant than the simple ‘‘7 percent of the 

park’’ figure might lead one to believe. 

The National Park Service will also tell you that they are proposing this closure 

for reasons other than fisheries management, but once you look a little deeper, that 

is clearly false. The National Park Service claims in their draft General Management Plan that the proposed marine reserve is intended to ‘‘provide snorkelers and 

divers with the opportunity to experience a healthy, natural coral reef, with larger 

and more numerous tropical reef fish and an ecologically intact reef system.’’ However, restricting or prohibiting fishing in order to protect fish habitat and rebuild 

fish stocks is inherently fisheries management. Management of the park’s fisheries 

resources is defined by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate cooperative management between the National Park Service and the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Over the last several decades, the FWC 

has established itself as a leader in state fish and wildlife management, particularly 

saltwater fisheries management, as evidenced by its efforts to help bring back species such as snook, redfish, and sailfish to their current sustainable levels. In the 

MOU, the FWC states its position that ‘‘marine reserves (no-take areas) are overly 

restrictive and that less-restrictive management measures should be implemented 

during the duration of this MOU.’’ The FWC has stated numerous times its believe 

that other, less restrictive management measures than a marine reserve can and 

should be implemented in the park to help rebuild the park’s fisheries resources. 

This conclusion was also reached by the park’s Fishery Management Plan Stakeholder Working group, which was formed by the park in 2004 to develop recommendations on goals and actions the park’s Fishery Management Plan, and to 

comment and make recommendations on portions of BNP’s General Management 

Plan that are pertinent to fisheries. After six months of meetings, the group, which 

consisted of commercial and recreational fishers, divers, scientists and representatives of environmental groups, produced recommendations included more restrictive 

fishing regulations for certain species, species-specific spawning closures and a 

mechanism to pay for improved enforcement and education of park rules and regulations. Importantly the group concluded that a marine reserve should only be established as measure of last resort and only after all else had failed. 

By proposing a marine reserve, the National Park Service is ignoring the recommendations of the FWC and the stakeholder working group. In doing so, it is 

casting aside professional and local expertise of fisheries management and severing 

trust with the local sportfishing community. 

The National Park Service claims that this area will provide a haven for 

snorkelers and divers, which will more than make up for the lost angler trips and 

associated economic impacts, but I challenge the National Park Service to explain 

45 

how this will occur. According to Park Superintendent Mark Lewis, there are only 

15–20 mooring buoys for boats to tie off on in the proposed marine reserve, where 

anchoring will not be allowed. So all of these supposed divers and snorkelers the 

park is counting on making up for lost fishing trips will only be able to access the 

reserve from these 15 or 20 spots. In actuality, not only will this area be closed to 

anglers, but the vast majority of it will also be inaccessible to anyone else. 

As is the case with coral reefs the world over, the reefs in Biscayne National Park 

are facing numerous threats. However, the most significant of these threats—ocean 

warming, disease and acidification—cannot be addressed by simply closing areas to 

fishing. Where recreational fishing is having an impact on reefs, there are numerous 

less restrictive management approaches, like no-anchoring areas and stronger species-by-species fishing regulations, which can be put in place to mitigate fishing impacts. 

The estimated impact of salt water fishing in the State of Florida is approxi- mately $15 billion annually. Closing local fisheries and access to fisheries will substantially impact hundreds of livelihoods, in our local economy and beyond. Given 

our current economy and the recent difficult times we have just endured, any additional impact on jobs would significantly affect our residents. 

If the National Park Service’s goal is to improve the park’s fisheries and habitat, 

there are other, less restrictive options that could effectively rebuild and sustain the 

park’s fisheries resources. The National Park Service should step back from the proposed marine reserve in the General Management Plan and instead work with the 

FWC and local stakeholders to address these issues in the Fishery Management 

Plan. By slowing this process down and reviewing the variety of other tools available, I am confident that a plan can be reached that addresses the resource challenges in the park while still allowing the public to access the park’s waters. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you this morning and respectfully 

hope the voice of the people will be heard in protecting livelihoods while working 

together to protect our beautiful resources. 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Curlett? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CURLETT, 

FLORIDA RESIDENT 

Mr. CURLETT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Committee members, and my soon-to-be Congressman, Congressman Rivera. And 

for what it is worth, I am a third-generation member of the party 

of Lincoln. 

My name is John J. Curlett. My friends call me Jack. I am a 

year-round resident of South Florida, North Key Largo to be exact, 

and I have been there since 1984. I am a recreational angler. I fish 

both offshore and inshore, I have managed inshore and offshore 

sailfish tournaments, and I am here today on my own dime. 

We have talked about this 2005 working group. In 2005, when 

Biscayne National Park first started the process of redrafting the 

general management plan, which all parks are required to do every 

20 years, Biscayne National Park was also required to do a fishery 

management plan that they shared the jurisdictional responsibilities with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. With agreement of both, and with the assistance of the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, a fishery management plan 

working group was formed. That group is comprised of two dozen 

stakeholders, along with some environmental interests. And people 

say that we have ignored that. Trust me, we haven’t. I chaired that 

group. 

During the same period of time, I also served on the boards of 

Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, the Ocean Reef Rod and Gun Club, 

and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. 

In fact, I am the recreational angling rep to the Advisory Council. 

46 

I still work in those same organizations today, along with the 

South Florida National Parks Trust, which encompasses Biscayne 

National Park; the Ocean Reef Conservation Association; and the 

Wildlife Foundation of Florida. I do this for one reason and one 

reason only: I want to make it a better place going forward. And 

the things I want to make better are the local habitat and the local 

fishery. 

I am here today because I witnessed firsthand the degradation 

of the local habitat and the depletion of the fishery. We are here 

today because Biscayne National Park has in its 2001 draft general 

management plan designated a small area, 7 percent, 10,000 acres 

that we heard today, as a marine reserve as the means to protect 

and reserve what is left of that depleted habitat and fishery. 

When Congress originally established the National Park System, 

the intention was that the parks are to be protected and preserved 

for the common benefit of all people of the United States, not just 

any one single user group. To that end, the national parks are held 

to a higher standard than other Federally owned lands and bodies 

of water and, therefore, to a higher degree of maintenance and 

management. 

The last scientific assessment of the habitats in Biscayne National Park was conducted by the University of Miami, the RSMAS 

school, back in 1999. No one has mentioned that, but 13 years ago, 

fish stocks, 70 percent of the 35 individual fish stocks, 70 percent 

were overfished and undersized. I mean, do we have any reason to 

believe that 13 years later they have gotten any better? You know, 

today we have better fish finders, better bottom reading machinery, 

better GPS, better devices to find, catch, locate, fish. And on top 

of that, the number of recreational anglers has grown exponentially. I am a recreational angler; I know that for a fact. 

The main purpose of a marine reserve is not to intentionally 

deny access to anyone, but it is to protect the precious resources 

that are entrusted to the park’s care, at the same time offering rewarding experiences for all visitors, including sightseers, boaters, 

snorkelers, divers, kayakers, glass-bottom boat operators. Visitors 

from all around the country and all over the globe visit Biscayne 

National Park, and they expect to see something that resembles a 

national park, not a terrestrial Bureau of Land Management piece 

of property or just another body of water. They want to see an 

aquatic Yellowstone or Yosemite. That is what they expect, and 

that is what they deserve. Biscayne National Park is not there 

solely for the enjoyment of local residents; it is there for everyone, 

and that is why it is called a national park. 

My experience in fishing and providing advice to the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary leaves me with the recommendation that a marine reserve is the right tool at this time. I keep 

hearing, oddly enough, from the Keys community, and they are encouraging NOAA to increase the number and the size of some of 

the similar RNAs, marine protected areas, within the sanctuary. 

Coincidentally, next month we are going to see the scientific report from a research natural area at the Dry Tortugas that was put 

together through a collaborative effort from the National Park 

Service, NOAA, Florida Fish and Wildlife, and the angling community—an agreement that took years. And we have a 5-year report 

47 

coming out. And I have spoken to those scientists who did the before and are doing the present, and we are going to see all sorts 

of fish size growth and species increase. There is just so damn 

more of them. 

Biscayne National Park is fortunate, and unfortunate, to be right 

next to such a bustling metropolis, Miami. The great park is accessible and available to millions, and unfortunately that access takes 

its toll. The Park Service has the responsibility to mitigate for such 

heavy use and to protect the resource. And if we ever want to see 

it recover from the decades of damage it has seen, they have to do 

that. 

All told, I am supportive of a marine reserve in Biscayne National Park as a means to protect this unique resource that exists 

in my backyard and your backyard. I want my grandchildren and 

their children and your grandchildren to be able to enjoy this incredible resource. 

I am Jack Curlett, and I am a recreational angler. You know, for 

years I have had people come to the Keys and go out on the water, 

have a great time, and say, ‘‘Wow, I can’t believe it.’’ I say, you 

know, ‘‘You should have been here 25, 30 years ago. You wouldn’t 

believe what it was like then.’’ You know, I have people say that 

to me whenever I say it as well, ‘‘You should have been here.’’ 

Wouldn’t it be great if 25 years from now—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Curlett, I need you to finish in a sentence. 

Mr. CURLETT.—one of our kids says, ‘‘You are so lucky that my 

parents did something 25 years back’’? 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curlett follows:] 

Statement of John J. Curlett on 

‘‘Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks’’ 

My name is John J. Curlett. My family, friends, and creditors call me Jack. I am 

presently, and have been since 1984, a resident of South Florida, North Key Largo 

exactly. I fish both offshore as well as inshore. Literally, at my doorstep, I have the 

ability to fish in either the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Everglades National Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park or, why we are all here today, 

Biscayne National Park. I am a recreational angler. 

In 2005 when Biscayne National Park first started the process of redrafting their 

General Management Plan, which all national parks are required to do every twenty 

years, Biscayne National Park was also required to draft a Fishery Management 

Plan, as they shared jurisdictional responsibility of the park’s waters with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. With the agreement of both, a 

Fishery Management Plan Working Group was formed with the assistance of the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Atmospheric Association and that 

group was comprised of two dozen local stakeholders and several environmental representatives. I chaired that working group from January through September of 

2005. During this same period of time I also served on the boards of Bonefish and 

Tarpon Trust, the Ocean Reef Rod and Club and the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council. I still work with those same organizations today, along 

with the South Florida National Parks Trust, the Ocean Reef Conservation Association and the Wildlife Foundation of Florida. I do this for one reason. I want to help 

make things better, those things being the local fishery, water and habitat. I am 

here today as I have witnessed first hand the degradation of our local habitat and 

the depletion of our fishery. 

We are here today because Biscayne National Park has, in its 2011 draft General 

Management Plan, designated a small portion, seven percent, of the park as a marine reserve. 

When Congress originally established the National Park System the intention was 

that it was to be preserved and protected for the common benefit of all of the people 

48 

of the United States, not just for any single user group. To that end, national parks 

are held to a greater standard than some other parcel of land or body of water and 

therefore deserve a higher degree of maintenance and management. The last scientific assessment of habitats and fish population in Biscayne National Park was 

conducted by the University of Miami in 1999. Even then, 13 years ago, it was found 

that 77% of the 35 individual fish stocks that could be analyzed were overfished. 

Have we any reason to believe 13 years later they have improved. Today we have 

better fish finders and bottom reading machinery and better global positing devices 

to catch fish. On top of that, the number of recreational anglers has dramatically 

increased as well. I know, I am a recreational angler. 

As I mentioned earlier, I serve on the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Advisory Council. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act 

was signed into law in 1990. Since that time numerous areas in the Sanctuary have 

been set aside as Sanctuary Preservation Areas(SPAs) and Ecological Preserves. All 

of these, just like the proposed Marine Protected Areas for Biscayne National Park 

are open to everyone but uses are restrictive to non consumptive uses. At first the 

local Monroe County residents were up in arms that they were being denied fishing 

in this resource. I know. I was one of them. I am a recreational fisherman. Over 

the past decade, like many other local anglers, I have seen fish populations increase 

in and around these SPAs, and as fish tend to swim and know no defined boundaries, they end up populating nearby and adjacent reefs and habitat. Fishing around 

these areas has never been better. 

The main purpose of a marine reserve is not to intentionally deny access to anyone but to protect the precious resources entrusted to the park’s care and at the 

same time offering rewarding experiences for all visitors, including boaters, sightseers, anglers, snorkelers, divers, kayakers, birders, and glass-bottom boat tour passengers. Visitors from all around the country, and all over the globe, visit Biscayne 

National Park and they expect to see something that resembles a national park, not 

a terrestrial BLM piece of property or just another body of open water. They want 

to see an aquatic Yellowstone, or a Yosemite. That is what they expect and that 

is what they deserve. Biscayne National Park is not there solely for the enjoyment 

of local residents. It is there for everyone. That is why it is called a national park. 

That responsibility is ours, yours and mine. 

I stand here as one of the few if not the only resident of Florida on this panel. 

I am an avid and regular angler of these waters. Anyone who truly knows the waters of Biscayne National Park knows that the reef is in serious danger of collapse. 

No conscientious angler would agree that fishing in this area shouldn’t be significantly curtailed. Strong tools need to be used in this park if it is ever to recover 

the reef coverage or fish numbers, species, and sizes that used to exist here. Bag 

limits and catch sizes just won’t matter in this area, as the fish simply aren’t there. 

A marine reserve is the most logical tool to apply in this area. Indeed, during my 

chairmanship on the Fishery Management Plan Working Group, we came very close 

to recommending a marine reserve of approximately 9000 acres. This recommendation was generated by the local stakeholders who sat on that committee, not a 

bunch of extreme environmentalists who’ve never been to the park or had a rod and 

reel in their hand. 

My experience fishing in and providing advice to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary leaves me with the recommendation that a marine reserve is the 

right tool to use here. In fact, I keep hearing from the community that they are encouraging NOAA to increase the number and the size of these sites throughout the 

sanctuary. 

These same results, I understand, are coming out of the marine reserve, or Research Natural Area at Dry Tortugas National Park. Indeed, through a collaborative 

process with the National Park Service, NOAA, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the angling community, we came to agreement over five 

years ago, after many years of negotiation, that we needed to close an area in and 

around the reefs in Dry Tortugas. The initial results are showing that fish sizes are 

larger, there are more of them, and there is a wider variety of species, too. 

Biscayne National Park is in both the fortunate and unfortunate situation of 

being right next to the bustling metropolis of Miami. This great park is available 

and accessible to millions of people. That access, though takes its toll. The park 

service has a responsibility to mitigate for such heavy use to protect this resource 

if we ever want to see it recover from the decades of damage that it has seen. 

All told, I am supportive of a marine reserve to protect the incredibly unique reef 

tract that exists in my backyard. I want my grandkids kids and your grandkids to 

be able to see and enjoy this incredible resource when they visit Miami. 

49 

Mr. BISHOP. Now, questions for this panel. Mr. Jones, do you 

want to start us off? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, that is very kind. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I want Mr. Judge or Mr. Couch to respond. When 

I look at how this problem developed, it really angers me for this 

reason: In 2005, the National Park Service initiated negotiation 

rulemaking process with 26 groups, including the citizens of Dare 

County. The negotiation rulemaking broke down when environmental groups in 2006, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

walked away from the discussions. You had the Federal Government, you had the people that pay the taxes coming together to 

reach a compromise, and 3 of the 26 walked away—the Southern 

Environmental Law Center, Audubon Society, and Defenders of 

Wildlife. 

Would you, Mr. Judge, or you, Mr. Couch, whichever one, comment on what you almost had but you lost it? 

Mr. JUDGE. Thank you, Congressman Jones, and I would be glad 

to. 

After almost 15 months of very intense 2- and 3-day continuous 

meetings monthly or every other month, 20, 21 different entities 

representing access, from ORV to local governments, which I represented, just that people have access to the beaches, to pedestrian, 

to birdwatchers—after all this time, in February of 2009, which 

turned out to be the last day—it was not scheduled to be the last 

day, but all of a sudden, the superintendent ruled it to be the last 

day—we put a plan on the floor. 

That plan had 19 votes in favor, 5 votes opposed. That plan represented a huge shift from where the beach access caucuses began 

all the way back in October of 2007 in their initial positions. That 

plan had 19 votes for it, 5 votes against it. 

The outfit that was hired by the Department of the Interior to 

run the negotiated rulemaking process instituted a rule that the 

only decision that would go forward would have to be unanimous. 

So they ruled that plan as a—they ruled that vote as a loss, that 

the vote failed. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Couch, will you share, with the minute and a 

half that is left, the—isn’t Dare County, out of 100 counties, has 

the second-highest unemployment rate in the State of North Carolina, somewhere around 19 percent? 

Mr. COUCH. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Obviously, Hatteras Island, Dare County, we are tourist-based, 

and our numbers fluctuate. But since this beach access fiasco, as 

indicated in my business—I used to do it with 10 full-time employees; now I am down to 6. I used to work 6 days a week; now I am 

working 10 days a week just to make up for those losses. 

And this has just handcuffed it, as Mr. Judge has said, it handcuffs our—we have no predictability other than what will come in 

bird closures, thus stifling our economy. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that a 

gentleman who served in World War II that lives in Dare County, 

that stormed the beaches of Omaha and later became injured, who 

has enjoyed going out to fish down in Hatteras and that area, that 

he has to have somebody carry him, he now cannot get on the 

beach to fish because of the vehicle situation, but yet he was willVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73982.TXT KATHY
50 

ing to give his life for this country. That is why this is an important hearing. And we must find balance before it is too late. And 

the people of this country have a right to those accesses. 

So I thank you for letting me sit on the dais today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Appreciate that. There may be other 

rounds of questions if you want to stay. 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Frost, in reference to 4094, if you could quickly, if you have 

figures, that would be very useful. What was the economic benefit 

of the park to the local area that we are referencing today? 

Mr. FROST. You want dollar figures? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yeah. 

Mr. FROST. I don’t know if I have those numbers off the top of 

my head. And I apologize. So I will have to get those numbers for 

you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We would appreciate that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. What is the plan for the ORV permit money? 

Mr. FROST. The plan would cover the costs of implementing the 

permit basically. It doesn’t do anything else. So in terms of, you 

know, the staff time that would be required to issue the permits, 

help on law enforcement, help on resource protection, it wouldn’t 

go into any other operational sort of thing for the park. It would 

just be used to cover the operational expenses of implementing the 

permit system. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Commissioner Judge, in your testimony, you claim that the park’s new ORV policy has destroyed the 

economies of the community by limiting or cutting the access to the 

park. 

Let me get some points of clarification if I may, Commissioner. 

In the 2009 Dare County tax report, which was issued following 

the impact of the consent decree, stated that the community had 

fared well and experiences a revenue reduction of 0.53. Is that figure correct? 

Mr. JUDGE. That is macroeconomics for the county of Dare. The 

county of Dare reaches from the Dare County Currituck line to the 

Hatteras inlet, approximately 93 or 94 miles. We have thousands 

of homes that stretch from that area. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So overall it is 0.53? 

Mr. JUDGE. Yes, sir. But that is the entire county. It doesn’t talk 

about the villages of Buxton and Frisco and Avon specifically. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And that same report stated that expected growth rate would be 6 to 8 percent overall in the county, 

correct? 

Mr. JUDGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Occupancy of campgrounds, cottages, motels, as 

measured and reported by Dare County on its tax report, appears 

to have increased since the emergency ORV restrictions were put 

in place. 

Mr. JUDGE. The economy of Dare County, the commerce of tourism has enjoyed growth over the years because of the family destination that we are. But again, you are looking at a countywide 

figure. That doesn’t break out and talk about the impact on the 

51 

businesses in the villages of Hatteras Island which is inside the 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The consent decree agreed to by the lawyers in 

your community and particularly negotiated by your county attorney, your group signed the paperwork that ended the first lawsuit; 

that is correct, right? 

Mr. JUDGE. Part of that statement, I would like to challenge, and 

that is that our county attorney—I don’t think any of y’all, if you 

knew the facts, would agree that he in any way handled negotiations. In fact, it was after he came home after the first round of 

negotiations in Raleigh with the special interest groups and the 

U.S. attorney, that we released a press release that we were pretty 

much cut out of the process. Shining the light of day on the process 

grew their anger, and he was told what the deal was going to be. 

And, yes, I along with my six other colleagues, we did sign a consent decree; as my colleague Alan Burr said, we chose to be shot 

in our foot and not in our head. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And Commissioner, one of the things that I understand is a significant threat to the beach nesting wildlife at the 

seashore, especially on Harris Island, are the feral cat colonies. 

And just for my own edification, I know that the Commissioner and 

Dare County is concerned about that, concerned about the wildlife. 

What is being done to address that very dangerous situation with 

feral cats and the wildlife? 

Mr. JUDGE. I don’t know that I can speak to how—the National 

Park Service shoots animals in the National Park Service. I really 

can’t address in the national park—I am not an expert on that, 

other than we know that they kill a bunch of them. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Well, there may be some other rounds here, if 

you want to follow up on that question at another time. I am going 

to have to leave in a few minutes. And the good Congressman from 

Florida will take over from here. So let me ask a couple of questions just before I go. Usually I try to go at the end. And I apologize for that. 

Commissioner Wright, if I could ask you to very briefly tell me 

about the MOU that Florida Fish and Wildlife has with the Park 

Service and why it is relevant in this situation. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The MOU is up, in fact, 

to expire in this coming September. But that memorandum of understanding is between the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, entered into and, quite frankly, we were concerned— 

my predecessors on the Commission were concerned about the possibility of no-access areas being created. And there is specific language in the MOU that provides that no-access areas would not be 

used for purposes of fisheries management. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Mr. WRIGHT. And we are the agency that does fisheries. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. And I will ask Mr. Rivera to follow 

up on that concept with me at some time. 

Mr. Judge, as I understand it, there was a lawsuit that dealt 

with this. Was that lawsuit ever adjudicated? 

Mr. JUDGE. No. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you did a consent? You cut a deal in some way? 

52 

Mr. JUDGE. The U.S. attorney and Southern Environmental Law 

Center, representing their clients, cut the deal. We were defended 

interveners. 

Mr. BISHOP. So let me see if I get this right. And this is not necessarily a question, Mr. Frost. It is a frustration I have with the 

entire Department of the Interior that keeps touting their wanting 

to do common sense and this doesn’t seem like common sense. 

The economic study you did that was purported in here took care 

of the entire county, but did not deal with the areas that are most 

impacted by this piece of property. You created a buffer zone that 

is far greater than any other buffer zones we have seen for certain 

purposes. We have—the Department of the Interior ignored local 

concerns and local input. There was a lawsuit that was never adjudicated by a court. Instead, you cut a deal before it ever happened, 

which even if that deal was appropriated, smells once again of political decisions being made outside of court to try and do some 

kind of political agenda. 

Good grief, this is a recreation area. And the only thing you seem 

to be prohibiting is recreation. It does not make sense. And I can 

understand why the people of North Carolina are so upset about 

that. When you have specific requirements in there that simply tell 

people—what is the verbiage you have there? Shoreline open to restricted pedestrian access. Leave no footprints behind. Walk in 

water where footprints wash away. No vehicles. No pets. No kites. 

No wonder when States in the West want to take back Federal 

land, they don’t want Park Service land because it doesn’t produce 

any revenue, because the Park Service has an attitude that makes 

it unfriendly and unpopular and disinviting for people to actually 

welcome it and to go there. This is a recreation area. It should be 

a primary concern. 

So what the Park Service has done—and this one is totally inconsistent with reality. It defies common sense, and it is simply inappropriate. And I thank Representative Jones for introducing this 

legislation, because somehow someone has got to bring reality back 

to the Department of the Interior, which seems to be devoid of that 

very concept. And fortunately, I hope we don’t do the same mistake 

in Florida, which is why this oversight hearing is here. 

Obviously what the local people are telling you is you are marching along a path that is going to lead to another conflict again, and 

hopefully you will make decisions ahead of that time that don’t 

send you down to a wrong decision. Get local input in there. I have 

always said that I really trust the people on the ground back in the 

State because they understand the situation. It seems as soon as 

you go up the food chain here, all of a sudden arbitrary decisions 

are made often. And once again, a lot of those decisions are made 

by consent decrees where a case is not being adjudicated, simply 

the Department is a making a deal outside of court and then saying, well that is what we have to do because that is the way the 

process works. 

I am sorry. This looks wrong. It smells wrong. It is bad. And once 

again, I realize you are not the decision maker there. But Mr. 

Frost, when you go back to your colleagues, tell them once again 

they have screwed up. Fix it. And I yield back. 

53 

Mr. Rivera, if you will take my place. And I think it is fair to 

say, Mr. Rivera, you have not had a chance to ask any questions. 

Please feel free to take that opportunity and then we will give Mr. 

Grijalva a second round here. 

Mr. RIVERA. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually going to yield to Representative Jones my time so we can continue on the Cape Hatteras issue and then Mr. Grijalva as well. 

Representative Jones, you are recognized. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And I want to say that if you knew Dare County well, you would 

understand that they are two different worlds. The upper part of 

Dare County is where you have Kill Devil Hills, you have the areas 

where the Wright brothers took off for the first flight. That is 

where the people are going. They go down to where these people 

live because that is where they can fish. It is two different worlds. 

It is two different economies, quite frankly. 

And I want Mr. Judge or Mr. Couch to speak to the fact that the 

two different worlds—and they are so different, it is almost unbelievable; the same wonderful people, but most of the people that 

have moved from the north and the west to Dare County end up 

living in the northern part of the county—excuse me, Mr. Chairman—but the southern part of the county is where these people are 

coming from, and it is their economy that is collapsing, thanks to 

the Park Service who, in 2005 said, We want to work with you. We 

want to see this work. But all of a sudden when the lawsuits came, 

they just changed their whole attitude. And I agree with the Chairman’s words. So if you don’t mind, if Mr. Couch or Mr. Judge could 

speak on the two different worlds. 

Mr. COUCH. Thank you, Congressman Jones. There are two important things I would like to go ahead and mention. Tomorrow 

there is a fishing tournament. It is an individual surf fishing tournament, sponsored by Four Plus out of Richmond, Virginia. It takes 

in 600 individual contestants for a 24-hour tournament, and it limits it to 600 people. Last year, it dipped to 550. As of yesterday, 

it has a total enrollment of 373. We have a fishing tournament in 

the fall which is done by Capital City out of Richmond, Virginia. 

It will most likely be the same thing. 

When the Park Service closes down Cape Point, which is right 

at my backdoor, last year it closed before April 1 and stayed closed 

all the way until August. Those people in our businesses that are 

around that entrance into that ramp, we suffered greatly. Those 

people who want to go to Cape Point but can’t because a threatened species has 1,000 meters worth of protection all the way 

around it, that business goes elsewhere, and we are denied that 

until August. And these things can be easily fixed if the Park Service would listen. Warren? 

Mr. JUDGE. Thank you, Congressman. And that is a very good 

question, a very good point. Hatteras Island is the vacation land 

for not only the people that stay on Hatteras Island but the people 

that stay north of Oregon and for residents of Dare County. There 

are two extremely valuable areas in the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. One is the Oregon inlet spit, which we have no more access there, and that is one of the greatest places to go on the backside of that spit and take your little children, your families. People 

54 

would cook out. They would spend a day picnicking. And the kids 

could wade in tidal water that was calm and safe for them. Parents 

could have a great family experience. The other place is South 

Beach, just adjacent to the geographical area that John was talking 

about, just to the west of Cape Point, again, one of the greatest 

beaches for people to go to enjoy safer waters from the ocean’s 

edge, and it is where we go. It is where the resident goes as well 

as the tourist. 

And Congressman, a very important point here. We talk about 

all these miles, and the special interest groups are going to argue 

one point and we are going to have another point. The Park Service 

has even another point. The Park Service developed this beach access by vehicle. There are 11 accesses from Oregon inlet to Hatteras inlet. There are 805 parking spaces. Unless you can afford to 

own and rent an ocean-front house or own it, you have to drive to 

the beach. That is how it was developed. There are 805 parking 

spaces. And you have to be an athlete to park in one of those parking spaces and make it to the beach. We eliminate children. We 

eliminate the elderly. We eliminate the handicapped under this 

rule. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RIVERA. Representative Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Couch, in your testimony—and you are trying to make the case for the economics of 

small business in your testimony. Your testimony puts almost the 

entire blame on reduced access to the small part of the area as the 

cause for that business drop. The park, as I understand it, has consistently seen an increase in visitation over the last 5 years. Occupancy rates have also increased, climbing to record levels in 2007, 

2008, 2009, 2010. 

Dare County has also, if I may—and I want to know what that 

impact has had on small businesses—has also made choices to impact your small business and others, including allowing several box 

stores like Home Depot to be built, increasing the footprint of WalMart. And you know the history of Wal-Mart is as they grow, and 

they are able to undercut, and the price is lower and the choice is 

greater, businesses that used to do the same thing that is now in 

that big box began to disappear in local and smaller communities. 

There have also been zoning regulations that have been changed. 

This recession has been the worst in 80 years. Hurricane Irene hit 

the island. People have cut back on personal spending. So how 

would you categorize all those economic impacts relative to the influence that the park is having in terms of the access issue? 

Mr. COUCH. Thank you for your question. Home Depot, Kmart, 

Wal-Mart the new Lowe’s is about 89 miles from my door. I certainly can’t go there and get back in time for lunch. It is an allday trip. The figures that are typically given in response to our 

concerns are for the more populated areas of Kill Devil Hills, Kitty 

Hawk, and certainly not Hatteras Island, and also includes 

Ocracoke Island, one of the poorest counties within the national 

seashore. There are eight villages that live within the seashore. 

People have to come in to us. And we are dictated by the Park 

Service with this ORV rule of when and where and how business 

is going to be conducted. We can’t go ahead and expect that. When 

55 

you come on to Hatteras Island, you come across Bonner Bridge 

and you go down through Pea Island Wildlife Refuge, which is 13 

miles, and then there is another additional six to seven miles before you can even go ahead and access the beach by ORVs. 

And ORVs is getting a bad name. This is just motorized access. 

It enables my children, my grandchildren, and my elderly relatives, 

so I can take them to the beach and we can sit there all day long. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That part was part of your initial testimony and 

I appreciate that. 

Mr. COUCH. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Just one more question if I may, Mr. Couch. Your 

organization was an intervener on behalf of the park during the 

2008 lawsuit. Your group signed off on the consent decree; correct 

or incorrect? 

Mr. COUCH. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And now the plan is not exactly what you want. 

So your group is now countersuing for that open access? 

Mr. COUCH. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And as the process goes forward, you know, the 

population of Dare County is about 35,000 people, if I am not mistaken. That was the commissioner’s testimony. In the summer it 

goes up to 100,000. Any public safety issues that you see on those 

beaches, now that you are commenting on that for the long haul, 

when people and vehicles collide? 

Mr. COUCH. No. I don’t characterize it that way. It is not certainly a safety issue. I would certainly like to go ahead and see 

what type of statistics are being used for somehow some sort of 

safety measures, when there is to my knowledge no data to support 

that. But we have a situation down there where these closures— 

and I kind of get back to this—when they put 1,000 meters around 

an area for a bird and then it closes off areas that are otherwise 

open but you can’t get to. 

And these numbers of the economy, they don’t sustain those for 

Cape Hatteras, Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I appreciate it, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I am going to yield a minute 

or so of my time to Representative Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And this will be my close 

in a way. You have been very gracious. 

I want to ask about the zoning of box stores in the county. And 

that would go to Mr. Judge. And then I would like if there would 

be some response to what the Ranking Member was saying about 

the safety issue. 

Mr. JUDGE. Thank you, Congressman Jones. Dare County, the 

zoning in the stores that the Ranking Member asked about are— 

although they are in Dare County, they are not in Dare County’s 

governmental jurisdiction. They are in the towns of Kill Devil Hills 

and Kitty Hawk. Years ago, Dare County zoned—we put a limit 

size on big box stores. I believe the most you can have is 20,000 

square feet. We did it in conjunction with our land use plan. Our 

land use plan specifically speaks to the nurturing and the reinforcement and the continued development of our mom-and-pop 

businesses. 

56 

The only thing you can build bigger than 20,000 square feet in 

unincorporated Dare County would be a hotel or a motel, if it was 

in a properly zoned—if it was in a correctly zoned part of the county. 

As far as public safety, I am unaware of any public safety issues. 

The Park Service has an outstanding force of rangers. They have 

a great relationship with the Dare County Sheriff’s Department. 

We have seven volunteer fire departments on Hatteras Island that 

all participate in ocean rescue and are trained in that way. We 

have an independent village EMS service that is an adjunct to the 

Dare County EMS Service. Here again, they are very well trained 

on water rescue and those types of things. 

So I am unaware of—that is not to say that the ranger won’t arrest somebody tomorrow for a traffic violation on the beach. It is 

not to say that there might be an injury on the beach or whatnot. 

We are certainly not free of any sort of problems. But I know of 

no public safety issues that should be of concern should H.R. 4094 

be adopted. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, in closing, again I thank you and the 

Ranking Member. If you really would go back and just see, when 

they try to work a plan out and the stakeholders came together 

with the exception of four or five, and when you look at the fact 

that, again, these are two different worlds, I cannot stress that 

enough. You go from the growing area of Dare County where people are moving in with money, buying the big homes and everything. And you go down over the bridge and you go down to 

Rodanthe, Buxton, and Hatteras and those areas, it is wonderful 

but it is two different worlds. And their economy is strictly and 

only succeeds because people come to that part of Dare County. 

And if they stop coming and they half the people that are coming 

now, then it won’t be but so long before these small businesses that 

are independently owned, they will go out of business. 

That is why we need to find common sense with the government 

and the people who pay the taxes of those of us who work for the 

government. And we need to understand, we are public servants. 

Public servants need to find compromise. Extremism will ruin this 

Nation. This is a prime example. This is what is going to happen 

to the southern part of Dare County if we don’t help them out. 

Thank you for this time. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you very much. I am actually going to yield 

back the remainder of my time on this round. And we still have 

some questions on Cape Hatteras so we will go to Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Dr. Frost, Biscayne, a couple of oversight questions. One question: Through the testimony we have heard relative 

to that, the impression one gets is that this process has been in the 

dark, that there has been no transparency, that people don’t know 

that they had limited to no input, that the public comment period 

was limited. How many public meetings have you had? 

Mr. FROST. I think there were three public meetings over the 

course of 3 or 4 years. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And how many comments have you received? 

Mr. FROST. I think somewhere around 18,000. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And how would you categorize those comments? 

57 

Mr. FROST. Most of those comments are in support of the marine 

reserve or establishing a marine reserve. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And Mr. Curlett, thank you for your testimony. 

Are people in the angling community supportive of the reserve? 

And if you could briefly—because I have other follow-up questions 

on this—if you could briefly tell me why. 

Mr. CURLETT. Well as I started to say earlier, we have several 

reserves in the Keys. And we have had them there for—starting 20 

years ago in 1990. I fought them 20 years ago. I was dead set 

against them. I was on the Sanctuary Advisory Council to be the 

other side. And after serving on the Council over the past 8 years, 

I see them work. I have seen them work in the Dry Tortugas, and 

I have seen them work right in front of my house off of Carysfort 

Reef. Biscayne National Park is an intensive care patient. You 

don’t give it two aspirins and send it home. It needs something a 

little bit more dramatic, unfortunately. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And the reserve is—— 

Mr. CURLETT. The reserve is it. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Wright—and thank you for your 

testimony as well. 

Counsel, the MOU that we have been referencing was signed in 

2002 and again in 2007. You were not a member of the Commission 

until August of that year; is that correct? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So let me ask, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, what science does it use to make their decisions to continue sustainability of their fisheries and to make those vital decisions that you, under the MOU, have that prerogative? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I am glad you asked that question. Our research institute is world famous. We regulate our fisheries not by intuition 

or guesswork, or certainly not by referendum, but we regulate by 

science. We have scientists that are renowned for the fisheries 

management that we do. We have brought back red fish from the 

brink of extinction. We manage down to the point of scientifically 

determining the spawning potential ratio of surviving fish after a 

sustainable catch. And that is the kind of science that we think 

ought to be at least looked at in this instance before we go to an 

absolute closure. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And let me in reference to the 

science—and I think that is very important. And if more decisions 

were made on science, in fact, we would be a lot better off, all of 

us collectively. 

The Port of Miami is pursuing a big expansion to attract those 

big freighters that are going to be expected to arrive from Asia 

when the Panama Canal gets widened. That is supposed to be completed in 2014. There is opposition from the environmentalists and 

anglers over the impact on species and the coral reef. Yet your organization, the Commission, has voiced support for allowing there 

to be 600 no fishing days with this new work. You see that as a 

valid action; yet creating the marine reserve zone to protect activity such as scuba diving is not valid? How do you reconcile those 

two? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, because there is a scientific basis for the reconciliation. There has been a comparison to the Dry Tortugas cloVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73982.TXT KATHY
58 

sure to the one proposed in Biscayne National Park. The Dry 

Tortugas, by comparison that area is, number one, extremely remote and it encompasses 400 square nautical miles. The area that 

is being proposed for closure is literally within the outskirts of 

Miami and, by comparison, constitutes only 16 square miles. The 

ability to manage 400 square miles from a closure as opposed to 

16 is overwhelming. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I appreciate that, counsel. And with that, Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. And I yield back. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you. Thank you so very much. 

First, let me ask for unanimous consent to include into the 

record statements submitted by Tom Davidson of the Bonefish 

Tarp and Trust and Bruce Popham of Marathon Boat Yard Marine 

Center who support the Service’s proposal. 

And in opposition, I would like to submit statements from Carl 

Liederman of Captain Harry’s Fishing Supply Company; Jefferson 

Angers, President of the Center for Coastal Conservation; Joe 

Neber of Contender Boats Incorporated; Don Waters, a Florida 

State spearfishing champion with over 40 years of experience in 

diving and fishing in the park; Karl Wickstrom, the founder of 

Florida Sportsmen; and Rob Southwick, President of Southwick Associates, which conducted a socioeconomic impact study of the Service’s proposal. 

I also have a letter to Secretary Salazar from both of Florida’s 

Senators, Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Marco Rubio, that was 

sent yesterday in opposition to the Park Service’s proposal. So, 

without objection, I would like to ask that these be included in the 

record. Seeing no objection. 

Now to my questions. Biscayne National Park is the largest marine park in the National Park System. My constituents visit the 

park for all the recreational activities available there. A large component of these activities is recreational fishing, which supports 

and sustains angling and angling-related jobs in South Florida. A 

healthy fishery is vital to these businesses, and we should work on 

conserving these natural resources and certainly not locking them 

up. 

Just to offer a few statistics, Florida’s approximately 2 million 

saltwater anglers annually contribute approximately $3 billion in 

retail sales, 50,000 jobs, and over $345 million in State and local 

tax revenues. Similarly, the boating industry supplies over 200,000 

jobs and over $16 billion in economic impact statewide each year, 

with a substantial portion of that economic output occurring in 

South Florida. 

Now in their letter, Senators Nelson and Rubio say, quote, the 

measures proposed in the Park Service plan represent the most extreme tools available for making fishery management modifications 

to Biscayne National Park, ignoring alternative ways to achieve the 

desired resource improvements without sacrificing the public’s ability to access and enjoy the park, unquote. 

The Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan Working 

Group—and Mr. Curlett, you are the chairman of the working 

group—in their capacity to consult on the fisheries portion of the 

park’s general management plan, did not include implementing 

marine reserves or no-take zones within the park in their final recVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73982.TXT KATHY
59 

ommendations. However, the Park Service, in their preferred alternative plan, plan four, does include a marine reserve. 

So first, Mr. Frost, the Service went against the recommendation 

of the working group? 

Mr. FROST. Well, the working group was dealing primarily with 

fishery issues and a fishery management plan. The GMP is a much 

broader document and it looks at all aspects of how we manage a 

national park. And as part of the MOU, we mentioned in the MOU 

that while we weren’t going to look at marine reserves in the fisheries management plan, we reserved the right to look at a marine 

reserve as part of the larger GMP process. So if you read the GMP 

in its entirety, it is really not just about fishing. It is about visitor 

use and visitor experience. 

So Biscayne was established to provide a variety of visitor experiences. People like to come there to snorkel. They like to come to 

scuba dive. They come to watch wildlife. They come just to hang 

out and be quiet. And then they come to fish. So there is a variety 

of users. 

So the GMP is trying to make those visitor experiences to everyone available. So what the marine reserve is going to do is, while 

it will restrict fishing in that 7 percent of the park, it is not going 

to restrict anything else. Boats are still going to be able to go into 

that area. They are going to be able to tie up to moorings. They 

are going to be able to dive. They are going to be able to snorkel. 

They are going to be able to swim in the water. So it is just that— 

we are trying to—but at the same time, by doing that, we are going 

to allow that fisheries to recoup. And what that is going to provide 

is, it is going to provide sort of a respite from the pressure of the 

fishing. And those fish along the coral reef, they are going to grow 

and they are going to be bigger, and that is what people want to 

see. They want to come and see big fish. And as a result, as that 

happens over time, those fish are going to spill out and it is going 

to be available for fisheries options, too. 

Mr. RIVERA. Well, you really read my mind in terms of that distinction between the GMP and a fishery management plan. So let 

me ask you specifically: I believe in the memorandum of understanding which the Service has with the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, all fisheries within the park will be governed cooperatively with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 

in a fishery management plan, not a general management plan. 

So why is the Park Service placing fishery management issues 

in the general management plan and not the fishery management 

plan? And how is that consistent with the MOU? 

Mr. FROST. Well, again, as I stated previously, the general management plan is looking at visitor use primarily. And as sort of a 

side thing for visitor use, trying to enhance those recreational opportunities, you are going to get some fisheries benefit. The GMP 

is not trying to regulate a fisheries there. It is really about, how 

do we operate a park to provide a broad opportunity for all visitors—not just one subset of visitors but all visitors—an opportunity 

to experience the park the way it was envisioned when it was created back in the 1960s? 

Mr. RIVERA. Well, let me ask Mr. Wright. In Mr. Popham’s statement in support of the park’s proposals, he brings up the protected 

60 

areas in Dry Tortugas National Park, which you mentioned earlier. 

I guess, first, I would like you to comment on Mr. Frost’s comments 

just now but also—I know you mentioned it earlier—but briefly 

compare and contrast Dry Tortugas National Park and Biscayne 

National Park. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Let me take the latter first, if I can, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, there is no scientific basis for the almost intuitive assumption, if you will, that by closing an area within the Biscayne 

National Park that there are going to be, quote, big fish and that 

big fish will migrate from that and will enhance fishing opportunities surrounding that area. There simply is no—I am not saying 

that that is an incorrect statement. I am saying that I have consulted with my staff, and I am being told there is no scientific basis 

to make that statement. And, of course, then there is no scientific 

basis for the closure that is based on that assumption. 

With regard to taking an area and enhancing the experience—— 

Mr. RIVERA. Before you go there, can you also briefly describe the 

consultation the Service had with the Commission on Dry Tortugas 

and what you were just talking about, the comparison between Dry 

Tortugas and Biscayne National Park? Was there any consultation? 

Mr. WRIGHT. There was a consultation, and we supported that. 

That is a completely different ecosystem. It was impacted and was 

to benefit in that closure, if you will, because of the very distinct 

stresses upon it. But it is remote from activities. As I indicate, it 

is 200 square miles as opposed to 16 square miles. There were a 

lot of reasons why, based on the science and based on the recommendation of our scientists, we did support that. 

But we do not support this one. And we do not believe that there 

should be a closure denying anglers an opportunity; and, if you 

will, at their expense providing an opportunity for others. We have 

found, the Commission has found that the resource can be managed effectively and access can be granted to all persons but not 

necessarily to exclusive groups. 

Mr. RIVERA. And did you want to comment at all on any of the 

earlier comments from Mr. Frost on the use? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, on the use—well, on the use issue, that is 

what I was speaking to, Congressman. We, as a Commission, regulate fisheries and have historically regulated them while providing 

the most protection with the least regulation. It is my belief as a 

commissioner—and I speak for my Commission and for our staff— 

that there are many other successful tools in our toolbox to regulate this area in consultation with the Park Service for the goals 

that they claim they want to achieve without leaping directly to the 

most draconian measure, which is a closure of use or limitation of 

use. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Frost, have you consulted with the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife out at Biscayne National Park? And how is their input 

incorporated? 

Mr. FROST. Yes. I know that our superintendent and our regional 

director just met recently with staff from the Florida Fish and 

Game Commission. And the bottom line is we need the State Fish 

and Game agencies to work closely with us. And we want to continue to reach out to the Commission and to the staff to continue 

the dialogue. 

61 

The thing we have to remember is we haven’t made a decision. 

This is a proposal. We are continuing to have those discussions. We 

want to have additional discussions before the plan becomes final. 

So we absolutely have reached out and we are going to continue 

to reach out before the plan becomes finalized later this year. 

Mr. RIVERA. Let me go directly there to these proposals. I see in 

alternatives 3 and 5, you included a permit zone in a northwest 

portion of the park. My understanding is that anglers would have 

been required to purchase a permit to fish in those waters. Instead 

of a marine reserve, would the Service consider this proposal for 

the reserve no-take zones in alternative 4? First question. And perhaps ban fishing for specific species seasonally during their spawning periods? I have been told that enforcement has been a problem 

in the past. Perhaps funds generated from the permits or fines or 

infractions can be used for increased patrols and inspectors, so 

have less intrusive proposals like this that have been studied and 

evaluated? 

Mr. FROST. Absolutely. I mean, as you stated in the other alternatives, we haven’t evaluated those alternatives. And we have to 

be a little bit careful because we don’t want to be predecisional and 

sort of mess up the NEPA process. But we have heard all the comments and we are considering them. So absolutely, we are going to 

look at those options and see how we can make the best decision 

possible in the final general management plan. 

Mr. RIVERA. In meetings I have had with Parks Director Mark 

Lewis, I have been told that anglers do not even fish in the proposed marine preserve. So can you provide the Committee, within 

the next week, with any surveys or studies the Service has done 

to come to this determination and the methodology of that survey? 

Mr. FROST. We will provide you whatever we have, absolutely. 

Mr. RIVERA. Let me ask Mr. Crook, since you gave your testimony earlier, any thoughts that you may have regarding anything 

you have heard today from the Park Service or anyone else? 

Mr. CROOK. Yes. I would like to make sort of a summary comment. As to the use of the park, Superintendent Mark Lewis mentions 15 to 20 moorings with no anchoring. This is so far away from 

the current use that enhanced use of the park and the benefits that 

it provides don’t seem to be consistent. 

In the case of the coral reefs, we have to look at the numerous 

threats that are happening all over the world. And it is not just 

angling. We have disease. We have warming, acidification, and we 

have environmental issues that took place 30, 40, 50 years ago that 

are probably a major effect on the fisheries over the last 10, 20 

years. 

When I was growing up, about a mile north of the Feather Beds 

Banks, you could no longer see the bottom of the bay. Today you 

can see the bottom of the bay almost to the Rickenbacker Causeway. The water cleanliness, the water quality is a major issue as 

to what happened to the park. 

I contend that when the University of Miami in 1999 said fish 

stocks were down, I would not dispute that. And I say this from 

a common user’s point of view, not a scientist, not an enforcement 

agency or some fisheries commission, but from our customers, the 

people that are with us. The quality of the water today is better. 

62 

That will start to generate a habitat. The grass beds are better in 

the north bay. It will improve the habitat that is in the park. And 

over time—and I can talk almost to an angler, to a charter boat 

guy, and probably to most law enforcement, there is better fishery 

today than there was 10 or 15 years ago. 

There are issues, and we can get into species specifics, that will 

tell you there are exceptions to what I have just said. And I would 

not deny that. But that falls back to fish management. It is an ongoing effort that needs to be made. Just stripping access and making closures is not the answer. 

The economic impact—I was talking to a charter boat guy. If we 

start making closures, the amount of dollars that they generate, it 

doesn’t just go to the chapter captain, the charter boat. It goes to 

the suppliers of products he needs, it goes to his crew who earn 

livelihoods from it, the people he buys stuff, there are livelihoods 

at stake. 

So to date, the fishing establishments in Miami have decreased 

severely over the last 5 years under current economic conditions. 

If we further reduce the economic value which fishing brings to 

South Florida, we are going to affect more livelihoods. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Curlett, do 

you have any final thoughts? 

Mr. CURLETT. Congressman Rivera, if I might, two things. You 

hit on the Fishery Management Plan Working Group and not coming to a decision to close, have an RNA. They didn’t have a decision 

not to have one. In fact, we were told we could not have one under 

that MOU. We were scheduled for five meetings. We had to have 

a sixth meeting because we started pushing on that. I said ‘‘we.’’ 

The group did. The stakeholders did, from Bill Curtis who had 

fished that resource for 60 years and would tell you that there is 

nowhere near the fish there today that there were 60 years ago. 

And we had a sixth meeting and we were that many votes away 

from agreeing to an 8,500-acre RNA in the park. So the Fisheries 

Management Group did kick it around. 

Second, it is in your testimony that there are other tools in the 

box to use. The fishery was depleted, the last scientific report in 

1999; where the heck are the tools? The tools have been there, the 

same tools. What tools have been used to bring it back? Once 

again, this is a patient on life support. Giving it a couple aspirins 

and sending it home and saying, we will look at you tomorrow, is 

not going to work. I fish there. I live within a 5-mile ride of the 

Carysfort no-take zone. I see the success story there. I am a recreational angler. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you very much. I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on a very important issue that affects 

the real lives of a lot of people, both in North Carolina and in Florida and, really, for the Nation. 

I think Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Diaz-Balart, 

Congressman Jones, were very prescient in their comments to note 

the real impact that this has on our fisheries and on our economy. 

I want to thank the panelists as well. Thank all of you for being 

here and for your time and effort. I look forward to receiving information from the Park Service as we go forward. 

63 

I would like to note that members of the Subcommittee may have 

additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you please 

respond to these in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 

days to receive these responses. 

Mr. RIVERA. And if there is no further business, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Documents Submitted for the Record for H.R. 4094 

The following documents submitted by The Honorable Walter B. Jones, Jr., in 

support of H.R. 4094 have been retained in the Committee’s official files. 

• AFFIDAVIT, State of North Carolina, County of Dare 

• Allegro, Peter, Secretary, Rhode Island Mobile Sportsmen Inc., Letter submitted 

for the record 

• American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S. LLC, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, 

and International Game Fish Association, Letter submitted for the record 

• Conk, Gary L., Director, New Jersey Beach Buggy Association, Letter submitted 

for the record 

• Correia, Bill, Vice President, Massachusetts Beach Buggy Association, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Eakes, Bob, President, Red Drum Tackle Shop, Inc., Letter submitted for the 

record 

• Gilliland, Reb, New Jersey Beach Buggy Association, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• Hardham, Lawrence, Letter submitted for the record 

• Hyde County, North Carolina, Resolution submitted for the record 

• Joyner, David K., President, North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Judge, Warren C., Chairman, County of Dare Board of Commissioners, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Spear, Hon. Timothy L., State Representative, North Carolina General 

Assembly, Letter submitted for the record 

• Taylor, Douglas A., Secretary, Jersey Devils Fish Club, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• White, Hon. Stan M., State Senator, North Carolina General Assembly, Letter 

submitted for the record 

Documents submitted for the record for the Oversight Hearing on ‘‘Access 

Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks’’ 

• Angers, Jefferson, Center for Coastal Conservation, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• Curlett, John, North Key Largo, Florida, Letter submitted for the record 

• Davidson, Tom, Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, Letter submitted for the record 

• Liederman, Carl, Capt. Harry’s Fishing Supply Co., Inc., Letter submitted for 

the record 

• Neber, Joe, Contender Boats, Inc., Letter submitted for the record 

• Nelson, Hon. Bill and Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senators, Letter to Secretary of 

the Interior Ken Salazar submitted for the record 

• Popham, Bruce, Marathon Boat Yard Marine Center, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• South Beach Dive and Surf, Grove Scuba, Aquatic Explorers, Underwater 

Archaeology Program, Tennessee Aquatic Project and Development Group, 

National Association of Black Scuba Divers, History of Diving Museum, 

Tarpoon Lagoon Dive Center, and Beneath The Sea, Inc., Letter submitted for 

the record 

• Southwick, Rob, Southwick Association, Letter submitted for the record 

• Waters, Don M., Sr., Palmetto Bay, Florida, Letter submitted for the record 

• Wickstrom, Karl, Florida Sportsman, Letter submitted for the record 

• Youngman, Julia F., Southern Environmental Law Center, Letter, statement, 

fact sheet and photographs submitted for the record 

Æ