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

45–339 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–599 

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 1816 S. 3148 

S. 2093 S. 3158 

S. 2535 S. 3226 

S. 2561 S. 3247 

S. 3011 H.R. 5137 

S. 3113 

JULY 30, 2008 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JEFF BINGAMAN and PETE V. DOMENICI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 1 

Braunlich, William H., President, Monroe County Historical Society, Monroe, 

MI .......................................................................................................................... 53

Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina ..................................... 3 

Carter, Derb S., Jr., Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, Chapel 

Hill, NC ................................................................................................................. 41 

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator From New York ............................ 8 

Dole, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator From North Carolina ................................... 9 

Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 28 

Jenkins, Coline, President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust, Greenwich, CT ...... 48 

Judge, Warren, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Dare County, NC ............ 37 

Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator From Michigan .................................................... 5 

Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator From Oregon ............................................ 10 

Wenk, Daniel N., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 13 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 59 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 85 

(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on National 

Parks will come to order. We have a long list of bills to consider 

today, including the following: 

S. 1816, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a 

commemorative trail in connection with the Women’s Rights National Historical Park, and will link properties that are associated 

with the struggle for women’s suffrage. 

S. 2093, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study segments 

of two rivers in the State of Vermont for potential addition to the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

S. 2535, to revise the boundary of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site in New York. 

S. 2561, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

theme study to identify sites to commemorate and interpret the 

Cold War. 

S. 3011, to expand the boundaries of the Palo Alto Battlefield 

National Historic Site in Texas. 

S. 3113, which concerns off road vehicle use in Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore in North Carolina. 

S. 3148, to modify the boundary of Oregon Caves National Monument. 

S. 3158, to extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission. 

S. 3226, to rename the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National 

Historic Site in Kentucky as the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park. 

S. 3247, to designate the River Raisin National Battlefield Park 

in Michigan. 

H.R. 5137, to ensure that hunting remains a purpose of the New 

River Gorge National River in West Virginia. 

While most of the bills on the agenda are non-controversial, a 

few bills will require more discussion. One of the bills is S. 3113, 
2 

regarding off road vehicle use within the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. This bill will overturn a consent decree negotiated by the 

affected parties and approved by the Federal judge, which is not 

our normal practice. 

The bill also raises issues about how the Park Service should 

manage the seashore and threatened wildlife. I understand that 

this is an important piece of legislation for the Senators from North 

Carolina. I hope that we can use this hearing to gain a better understanding of the situation. 

This is our last hearing of the summer. I wanted to thank our 

ranking member for working with me in such a cooperative and 

productive manner. Last week the subcommittee held an oversight 

hearing in Asheville, North Carolina regarding a biodiversity program of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The hearing 

was chaired by Senator Burr, and, by all accounts was a great success. I want to acknowledge Senator Burr’s efforts to facilitate a 

timely discussion on the topic. 

With that I’d like to recognize Senator Burr for his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Sanders and Wyden follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT, 

ON S. 2093 

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, as the Subcommittee on National Parks 

today considers a variety of bills I want to briefly comment on S. 2093, the 

Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act (S. 2093). Sponsored 

by Senator Leahy and myself, this bill would simply establish a study to determine 

the appropriateness of adding the Missisquoi River and its major tributary, the 

Trout River, to the National Park Service’s Wild and Scenic River System. It would 

be the state’s first wild and scenic river designation and as you might guess, is very 

important to the state of Vermont. 

Vermonters have long valued the natural beauty and water quality of our state’s 

rivers. The Missisquoi River, in particular, offers significant values for wildlife, scenery, and recreational activities. In addition, as the Missisquoi River flows into 

Missisquoi Bay on Lake Champlain, the bill is important to ongoing efforts by the 

state of Vermont and local communities to protect and maintain water quality on 

the lake. It is important to note that since 1982, segments of the Missisquoi have 

been listed on the National Park Service’s Nationwide Rivers Inventory list as being 

candidates for wild and scenic designation. 

The Missisquoi River Basin Association of East Berkshire, Vermont, is committed 

to protecting water quality through numerous on-the-ground projects in the area. 

They are also coordinating efforts in the state, with state and local governments and 

affected communities, to proceed with the Missisquoi River study called for in S. 

2093. I have received letters supporting these efforts from them, the state Agency 

of Natural Resources, and affected communities along the river. 

As I read the Administration’s testimony on S. 2093, I understand that there are 

concerns about areas on the Missisquoi River that they feel are not suitable for wild 

and scenic river consideration. I am confident that the Committee will be able to 

proceed in a positive manner that addresses the legitimate concerns of local communities in Vermont, for whom the Missisquoi’s wild and scenic designation is crucial 

to protecting water quality and preserving the river’s rich wildlife and recreational 

opportunities, and I look forward to moving this legislation quickly through the 

Committee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON, 

ON S. 3148 

I am very pleased that we are having a hearing today on S. 3148, legislation that 

I introduced to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument, and 

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today. 
3 

My bill would expand the Monument boundary by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, management of which would be transferred from the 

United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. 

Expanding this boundary will allow us to further protect the stunning majesty of 

both the underground and the above-ground treasures found at this National Monument. 

Because the current 480-acre boundary is insufficient to adequately protect this 

cave system, the National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. 

In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River, the River Styx. A perennial stream, the ‘‘River Styx,’’—an underground portion of Cave Creek—flows 

through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the 

National Monument. 

This bill would also provide authorization for the voluntary retirement of existing 

grazing allotments. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse and his family, has 

had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment (19,703 acres) since 1937. But Mr. Krouse 

now favors lease retirement with private compensation for his allotment; my bill 

will enable that local solution to further protect monument resources. 

The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern 

Oregon’s economy and to the national heritage. The Monument receives over 80,000 

visitors annually, and is the second smallest unit of the National Park System. 

A larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary and 

provide visitors more chances to enjoy them. In addition to the numerous subsurface 

resources, the Monument’s above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess 

a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. 

I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters in the local business and conservation community in Southern Oregon, to Phil Krouse for his commitment to Oregon’s natural resources, and to Craig Ackerman, the former Superintendent of the Oregon Caves National Monument. 

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and my colleagues in the 

House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu, 

who have introduced the companion legislation to this bill, to advance this legislation. 

I will be submitting questions for record for the Agency witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. More 

importantly thank you for holding this hearing. 

As I’ve ended every hearing that we’ve had here with a long list 

of bills, the Chairman has suggested that we’re through, only to 

find out a couple weeks later that we’re back doing it again. So I’m 

not sure whether I’m going to take him at his word that this is the 

last of this year. But I do hope that we have addressed all of the 

bills that our colleagues find a need for us to address. 

Before going into any details on the bills before us today I also 

want to thank Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman for allowing me 

to do a field hearing in the Great Smoky Mountains. This was an 

effort to update this committee and this Congress on the efforts undertaken years ago to do an inventory, an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory, of each species and plants that maybe we didn’t know existed in the United States or in the world. I will say that from the 

results of that hearing we have found phenomenal progress, the 

discovery of things never imagined. For anybody scared of spiders 

they might not want to hear how many new species of spiders have 

actually been found. 

Kira Rachel from the committee staff did a wonderful job, Mr. 

Chairman, working with the University of North Carolina at Ashe-
4 

ville and with my staff to make this hearing a success. I, once 

again, I thank you publicly for your willingness to allow this to be 

undertaken. 

Now, I understand that this may be the last hearing of our subcommittee this year. I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge your 

leadership, Chairman Akaka as it’s been productive. In the 12 

hearings during 110th Congress, this subcommittee received testimony and discussions on 117 bills. 

I’m not sure how that compares with other subcommittees, but 

it must be a record. I’ll say that’s it a record, Mr. Chairman. Of 

the 11 bills on our agenda today, is close to the average. I know 

all the members appreciate your leadership in addressing these 

bills in a timely fashion. 

Today’s agenda includes the important bill that my State of 

North Carolina with Cape Hatteras National Seashores. It’s a national treasure for the people of North Carolina and more importantly for the visitors around this country that have enjoyed it for 

generations. The National Park Service has been remiss in their requirement to prepare an off road vehicle management plan for the 

park. 

Because of that, we’re now faced with the situation in which a 

court sanctioned agreement is dictating the use of the area while 

the Park Service works on their rulemaking process that may take 

up to 3 years to complete. A bill introduced by Senator Dole, S. 

3113, would authorize the Park Service to follow their interim 

management plan which addresses endangered species in accordance with the biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rather than the court sanctioned agreement. 

I support this legislation. I want to commend Senator Dole for 

her leadership in introducing this bill and for working to find a solution. She’s here today now. She’s here to provide more details 

about her bill. I certainly look forward to her testimony. 

We also, Mr. Chairman, have two witnesses here from North 

Carolina to provide testimony. I’d like to publicly welcome Warren 

Judge, from Dare County and Derb Carter from Chapel Hill. I 

thank both of them for their willingness to be here to make the trip 

to testify in front of this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d love to think that we could get Senator Dole’s 

bill done this year. I understand the comments that you made. I 

would only ask you and my colleagues throughout the entire Senate to understand we haven’t been thrown a usual curveball, but 

we’ve been thrown a curveball that didn’t exist up until now in 

large measure because the Park Service didn’t do their management plan on time. The net result is that courts got involved in 

something that, quite frankly, they never should have gotten involved in. Those that will suffer are the next generation whose parents and grandparents use that national treasure in a way that 

they were protective of the environment, but enjoyed that national 

treasure in a way that I think God meant it to be enjoyed. 

I thank you for this hearing. Look forward to our witnesses. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. I want all 

of you to know that we are honored today to have three of our colleagues here to testify on some of these bills. This doesn’t happen 

very often, but we have you here and I want to then ask in this 
5 

order of Senator Levin, Senator Clinton and Senator Dole to give 

their statements. 

Senator Levin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. Senator 

Burr, thank you for the extraordinary work that you two do so well 

together. The issues that you grapple with, types, issues that we 

have on your agenda here today I know are important to each one 

of us. But you make these issues that are important to us, important to you as well and your staffs and that’s very, very much appreciated. 

The bill that I’m here on is the River Raisin National Battlefield 

Act. The bill is co-sponsored by Senator Stabenow. It is a Senate 

Companion bill to the one introduced by Congressman Dingell, who 

I know had hoped to be here. I think there’s three votes in the 

House. So he may not be able to get here I understand. 

He has spearheaded the effort to designate this battlefield as a 

unit of the National Park System. The battles of the River Raisin 

which took place in January of 1813 during the height of the War 

of 1812 were a critical part of the American campaign to retake Detroit in the Michigan territory from the British and from their Native American allies. On January 18, 1813, American militiamen 

were successful initially in overpowering the British forces in 

Frenchtown, now part of Monroe, Michigan. 

Four days later bolstered with additional support from their Native American allies the British returned killing hundreds of American soldiers. Outmatched the American forces were defeated and 

about 60 wounded militiamen were unable to walk were left behind 

on the battlefield. It was early the next morning on January the 

23rd, when unarmed, wounded militiamen were killed. 

Settlement homes were set ablaze. The bodies of slain soldiers 

were thrown into the fires. Of the nearly 1,000 Americans who 

fought in these fierce battles, about 400 were killed or missing in 

action, roughly 500 were taken as prisoners of war and only 33 escaped death or captivity. 

It was a brutal confrontation. It gave birth to a rallying cry, ‘‘Remember the Raisin.’’ That rallying cry galvanized American resolve 

of the War of 1812. 

It helped to rally American forces to overcome the British and to 

secure our Northern border. Visualize rallying cries like, ‘‘Remember the Maine,’’ or ‘‘Remember Pearl Harbor,’’ or just simply, 9–11. 

It may give you a flavor of what the cry, ‘‘Remember the Raisin’’ 

meant in America in 1813. 

The War of 1812 sometimes called America’s forgotten war was 

a vital turning point in our Nation’s history. It established America’s place as an independent Nation capable of defending itself. It 

secured our borders and enhanced our international reputation and 

boosted our young Nation’s morale. 

The River Raisin Battlefield sites were the place of horrific 

events. Yet these events became a turning point. A turning point 

that spurred our troops to future victories, protect our lands and 
6 

it culminated in a celebration of America’s second war of independence. 

While there are currently eight War of 1812 battlefield sites 

there are included in the National Park System, none of these sites 

are located in areas that were then considered the Northwest. All 

of the National Park sites relating to War of 1812 are located in 

the Eastern and Southern parts of the country. So the River Raisin 

Battlefield site meets important criteria for inclusion in the Park 

System. 

That is that it represents themes, sites and resources not already 

represented in the National Park System. Securing the Northwest, 

as it was then known during the War of 1812, as a vital piece of 

American history. It should be part of our Nation’s Park System. 

Today we are delighted to have with us and you will hear from 

a representative of the Monroe Historical Commission and Society, 

Mark Worrel. Excuse me. That’s the Mayor of Monroe is here 

today, Mark Worrel. He will not be testifying apparently. 

But William Braunlich, who is President of the Monroe County 

Historical Society is here. He will be representing Monroe. So we’re 

delighted to have Mayor Worrel and Mr. Braunlich here with us. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the events at the River Raisin were 

a critical part of our Nation’s history. They deserved to be shared 

with all Americans through our National Park System. Now this 

resource meets the criteria for inclusion in our Park System. 

We should not delay designating this area as a battlefield because we are approaching the 200th anniversary of the War of 

1812. We need to act quickly if we’re to see this site properly interpreted in time for this national celebration. I would ask that the 

balance of my statement be inserted in the record. 

Senator AKAKA. No objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN, 

ON S. 3247 

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, thank you for holding this hearing 

today on S. 3247, The River Raisin National Battlefield Act. This bill, cosponsored 

by Senator Stabenow, is the Senate companion to a bill Congressman John Dingell 

introduced in the House. Congressman Dingell will also be testifying today and has 

spearheaded the effort to designate this battlefield as a unit of the National Park 

System. 

The Battles of River Raisin, which took place in January of 1813 during the 

height of the War of 1812, were a critical part of the American campaign to retake 

Detroit and the Michigan Territory from the British and their Native American allies. On January 18, 1813, American militiamen were successful in initially overpowering the British forces in Frenchtown, which is now part of Monroe, Michigan. 

Four days later, bolstered with additional support from their Native American allies, the British returned, killing hundreds of American soldiers. Outmatched, the 

American forces were defeated, and about 60 wounded militiamen who were unable 

to walk were left behind on the battlefield. Early the next morning, on January 23, 

1813, the unarmed wounded militiamen were killed. Settlement homes were set 

ablaze and the bodies of slain soldiers were thrown into the fires. Of the nearly 

1,000 Americans who fought in these fierce battles, about 400 were killed or missing 

in action, roughly 500 were taken as prisoners of war, and only 33 escaped death 

or captivity. This brutal confrontation gave birth to the rallying cry, ‘‘Remember the 

Raisin.’’ It galvanized American resolve in the War of 1812 and helped rally American forces to overcome the British and secure our northern border. 

The War of 1812 is also known as America’s forgotten war, and yet it was a vital 

turning point in our nation’s history and established America’s place as an independent nation, capable of defending itself. It secured our borders, enhanced our 
7 

international reputation, and boosted our young nation’s morale. The River Raisin 

battlefield sites were the place of horrific events; yet these events became a turning 

point that spurred our troops to future victories, protected our lands, and culminated in a celebration of America’s ‘‘Second War of Independence.’’ 

The River Raisin battles and the massacre that followed were some of the most 

significant of the War of 1812, and had one of the highest casualty rates for the 

American Army during the entire course of the war. The Monroe County Historical 

Society recently commissioned a study by Brian Dunnigan, Interim Director of the 

Clements Library at the University of Michigan, to address the issue of ‘‘national 

significance.’’ He concludes, ‘‘The significance of the site lies in its manifestation 

that the War of 1812 in the West actually constituted a pair of parallel conflicts, 

in which the United States forces contended with the British and Canadians in a 

conventional war but were also involved in a full-scale and bitter wilderness conflict 

with the remaining organized Native American groups living east of the Mississippi 

River. . . . No other site better represents this theme of American history.’’ The battlefield is also already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is 

being nominated for designation as a National Historic Landmark. 

While there are currently eight War of 1812 Battlefield sites that are included 

within the National Park System, none of these sites are located in areas that were 

then considered the ‘‘Northwest.’’ Instead, the War of 1812 sites currently within the 

National Park System are all located in the eastern and southern parts of our country. Thus, the River Raisin battlefield site also meets another criterion for inclusion 

in the park system: that it represents themes, sites, and resources not already represented in the National Park System. Securing the then Northwest during the War 

of 1812 is a vital piece of American history, and should be part of our nation’s park 

system. 

When studying an area for inclusion in the park system, alternative management 

options also need to be considered to determine whether the National Park Service 

is best suited to administer the resource. Currently, some of the River Raisin battlefield is being managed through a cooperative agreement between the Monroe County Historical Commission and the Monroe County Historical Society. The City of 

Monroe and Monroe County own other parts of the battlefield site. Many local 

groups are involved, and powerful collaborative efforts are under way to protect and 

interpret these historical resources. It is critical that the federal government provide 

leadership to coordinate these efforts and bring this story to all of the American people through the National Park System. Elevating this nationally significant site to 

the Federal level will enhance its accessibility to all Americans and will bring this 

important story of America’s Second War of Independence to the rest of our country. 

Finally, an area to be designated as a unit of the National Park System must 

have sufficient public support. The local enthusiasm behind this proposal is tremendous. Later during this hearing, in your third panel of witnesses, you will hear from 

William Braunlich, President of the Monroe County Historical Society, who has vast 

knowledge about the River Raisin site. Importantly, the Mayor of Monroe, Mark G. 

Worrell is also present today to show his strong support for this designation. Other 

current and past members of the Monroe County Historical Society are also here 

today to urge your support for this designation. I believe that you have also received 

several letters from other community members in support of this legislation. I have 

not heard of a single dissenting voice in the community. Significantly, the local community has donated tremendous time, money, and energy to preserving this battlefield site. Since 2000, a total of $1.5 million in local funds have been committed to 

the River Raisin battlefield site. The State of Michigan has long recognized the significance of this battlefield site, and placed it in the State Register of Historic Places 

in 1956. Since 2000, the state has provided over $2 million for the River Raisin battlefield site. Additionally, the City of Monroe is committed to donating a core 36- 

acre parcel of the battlefield to the National Park Service, which this bill will also 

authorize. 

The events at the River Raisin are a critical part of our nation’s history, and deserve to be shared with all Americans through our National Park System. This resource clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in our park system, and we should 

not delay designating this area as a Battlefield. With the approaching 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812, we need to act quickly if we are to see this site properly 

interpreted in time for this national celebration. I now urge the Committee to favorably report the River Raisin National Battlefield Act so that all Americans will ‘‘Remember the Raisin.’’ 

Senator LEVIN. Again I thank the Chair. 

Senator AKAKA. Included in the record. Thank you very much, 

Senator Levin. Now we’ll hear from Senator Hillary Clinton. 
8 

STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka and 

Senator Burr. Thank you for inviting us to testify today on some 

important matters to our states and to our country. 

I’m privileged to be here this afternoon with Coline Jenkins, who 

you will hear from in the next panel. She is the great, great granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the President of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust. I’m testifying today on behalf of two 

pieces of legislation. 

One that would create the National Women’s Rights History 

Project Act and the second, the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act. You know, it has been a cause 

of mine for a number of years to make sure that all of our history 

is known and appreciated and particularly accessible to future generations. When I was privileged to be First Lady I created the Save 

America’s Treasures Program which the Congress has consistently 

supported to preserve and promote historic treasures and landmarks throughout America. 

I also believe this is critical for economic development. Heritage, 

tourism, nostalgia tourism are real economic tools that more and 

more communities are beginning to use. When I look at the role 

that Upstate New York played in the Women’s Rights movements 

that led to the women’s right to vote and still is influencing the 

world today, I’m very excited by this legislation. 

Five years ago I started working with my colleague, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter to establish a tourism trail to be known 

as the Votes for Women History Trail Route. It is a commemorative 

trail in connection with the existing Women’s Rights National Historical Park. It would create an auto route across upper New York 

State that would link properties historically and thematically associated with the struggle for women’s rights. 

It will include uniform signage and maps and educational handbooks, interpretive guides and websites. It does not authorize 

through this legislation any land acquisition. But it links already 

existing sites, both privately and publicly owned. It would ensure 

that all the sites on the tour have verifiable connections to the expansion of women’s rights. 

It will also recognize that although New York is where the Declaration of Sentiments was drafted in 1848 in this month, all those 

years ago, that women won the rights because of national action 

in amending our Constitution and passing necessary legislation. So 

the second part of the legislation would authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to make annual grants for up to 5 years to assist in 

stage historic preservation efforts. It’s important because then we 

would be able to have the National Women’s Rights History Project 

National Registry. 

So we’re going to both honor women’s rights including Susan B. 

Anthony’s home in Rochester, New York, the homes of Harriet Tubman in Auburn, New York. The Farmington Quaker Meeting 

House where members signed a petition to the New York legislature in favor of women’s suffrage in 1848. But will also be expanding to a public/private partnership that will reach across our country. 
9 

I want to say a few words about the Martin Van Buren National 

Historic Site Boundary Revision Act. President Van Buren, our 

eighth President, was born in a tavern in the tiny Upstate New 

York village of Kinderhook in 1782. After his Presidency, that’s 

where he returned home to. 

The Martin Van Buren National Historic Site was established by 

Congress in 1974. It preserves a portion of land from the Van 

Buren’s original farm as well as the mansion built in the 1790s. Although the original farm was 225 acres, today the general public 

has access to only 20 acres. 

My legislation will adjust the boundary to increase the site to approximately 261 acres. That sounds like a big expansion. But all 

of the land owners agree because the majority of the land will remain under private ownership and management. 

But it will enable the Park Service to provide visitor access to 

Van Buren’s original farm by way of trails. So the land will remain 

under private ownership and management. But will be accessible 

to the general public. 

So, Mr. Chairman and Senator Burr these are two very important projects to my state and our country. It’s important that we 

recognize these historic achievements. We just marked the 160th 

anniversary of the Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, 

New York for the very first time in all of history. Women and some 

courageous men came together to declare that women should have 

the same rights and to begin the long march toward suffrage which 

we finally achieved. 

My mother was born before women could vote. So for her and for 

so many of our mothers and our grandmothers this recognition 

linking our past to our present and moving into the future is especially important. I thank the committee for their consideration. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. It will 

certainly help us in our consideration of your bills. At this point in 

time I would suggest to Senator Levin and Senator Clinton that 

you may be excused if you—— 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statements. 

Now we will hear from Senator Dole and look forward to your 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH DOLE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator DOLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Burr. Thank you for holding this hearing today on S. 3113, a bill 

to reinstate the National Park Service’s Interim Management 

Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina. I introduced this bill with my 

colleague, Senator Burr. I appreciate your remarks earlier. 

This was introduced last month after hearing the cipherous concerns from local leaders and many of the seashore’s visitors discussing the issue with the Park Superintendent and reviewing the 

Park’s management plan. I strongly support the reinstatement of 

the National Park Services Interim Management Strategy. Because 

this will allow the time and opportunity for all parties to work to-
10 

* See Appendix II. 

gether to find a long term, practical approach to off-road vehicle 

use at Cape Hatteras without the fear of litigation. 

No question the National Park Service has been out of compliance with the law for the past 35 years. That must be remedied. 

A management plan must be developed. However, residents and 

visitors as well as the local economy should not have to suffer in 

the meantime. 

I’ve heard from local officials and hundreds, hundreds of concerned constituents that the economic damage to the area as a result of the consent decree issued last April would be devastating. 

Furthermore high gas prices and other economic woes have made 

for hard times for our tourism industry. Severely limiting access to 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a favorite destination, only 

makes a tough situation even worse for folks who rely on tourism 

for their livelihood. 

Additionally, managing the seashore through the courts without 

allowing for public input is the wrong way to come to a resolution 

on this issue. To ensure that a long term, sustainable solution is 

reached, public involvement is absolutely critical. Access to beach 

areas for fishing and other recreational activities is a long standing 

tradition that I believe can be continued with the appropriate safeguards for public safety and protection of the seashore’s natural environment. 

I appreciate the fact that Warren Judge, Chairman of the Dare 

County Board of Commissioners is here today to testify in support 

of this bill. I also have a statement from North Carolina Senate 

President Pro Tempore, Mark Basnight in support of the bill. Mr. 

Chairman, I ask that Senator Basnight’s letter* be made a part of 

the record. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, I encourage you to support this legislation. It is the right thing to do for the local community, for 

North Carolina and for this National Park. I appreciate this opportunity to make this statement today. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Dole, for your 

statement. I’m looking forward to also a statement from Representative Dingell. Senator Dole, like the others, I will certainly excuse 

you from the hearing here. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Let me call the first panel to the desk. Soon 

as they’re situated I’m going to call on Senator Smith for any remarks he may have. 

This is considered an Administration panel. We have Daniel N. 

Wenk, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of the 

Interior; and, Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for the National Forest 

System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 

Welcome and I’m now going to call on Senator Smith for his 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to serve with you. 
11 

* See Appendix II. 

I speak today on behalf of S. 3148, the Oregon Caves Monument 

Boundary Adjustment. It’s an act of 2008. I appreciate the work of 

this subcommittee in bringing this legislation before us. The Oregon Caves Monument is a very special place to the residents of 

Oregon, particularly to those in the Southern Oregon’s Illinois Valley. 

Ever since their unofficial discovery, most likely by the Takelma 

Indians of Southern Oregon and the subsequent re-discovery by 

Elijah Davidson in the fall of 1874, this jewel of Southern Oregon 

has illuminated the culture and history of the region. When President Taft established the 480 acre Oregon National Caves Monument in 1909, he did so to preserve this wonderful and unique site 

for generations to come. The caves have played a key role in the 

development of the community of Cave Junction in Josephine 

County. 

In the 1920s the Oregon Cave’s Cavemen were formed by a group 

of local businessmen and drafted Neanderthals to promote tourism 

to the caves in the region. With their cavemen attire and zany antics, they were a superb promotion for the caves and attracted 

thousands of tourists to the region. In 1931 a local designer and 

builder named Gust Lium, built the Oregon Caves chateau which 

today still stands as one of three great lodges in Oregon. 

The chateau has played a critical role in bringing tourists to this 

remote location. Today the chateau is maintained by the Illinois 

Valley Community Development Corporation. An organization dedicated to improving economic conditions in Oregon’s rural southwest. 

Next year will mark the Oregon Caves National Monument centennial anniversary. I believe this is a fitting time to discuss the 

options before us. While I’m generally supportive of the legislation 

to expand the monument’s boundary, I do have some concerns and 

would like to work with the subcommittee and with Senator Wyden 

to make some important changes to this bill. 

In addition to the critical aspects of tourism which has help build 

the local community, elements of agriculture, forestry and grazing 

have been equally, if not more important to the cultural and historical development of this community. To this end I have three concerns regarding this legislation. 

My first concern is that the bill’s provisions on grazing do not 

adequately protect Mr. Phil Krouse, whose family has brought their 

livestock to graze on these allotments since the 1930s. Mr. Krouse 

has prepared a statement for today’s hearing. Mr. Chairman, I 

would ask that this be included in the record, his statement.* 

Senator AKAKA. No objection. It will be included in the record. 

Senator SMITH. I hope to work with the subcommittee to ensure 

that the regulations managing these allotments remain with the 

Forest Service in the Bureau of Land Management until such time 

as Mr. Krouse is willing to accept a voluntary and private buy out 

of his grazing permits, subsequently relinquishing them back to the 

Federal Government. 

My second concern relates to forest contiguous to the monument. 

The forests around Oregon caves are in need of thinning and res-
12 

toration to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. The historic chateau, in particular, must be protected from the threat of wildlife. 

The National Park Service is fully capable of carrying out fuels 

treatment projects. I wish to include a condition in this legislation 

that the Park Service complete adequate fuels treatment projects 

on the lands acquired from the Forest Service. 

My third concern relates to hunting. Since lands administered by 

the Park Service are generally off limits to hunting. However, Oregon hunters, particularly bear hunters use the area discussed in 

this bill. According to the National Park Service there are roughly 

70 park units that currently allow hunting. 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has statewide jurisdiction for managing wildlife for hunting as well as managing the 

hunting seasons. So I would hope that the Park Service would 

work with ODF and W to determine how best to accommodate both 

hunting and tourism in the woods around Oregon Caves. After all, 

the caves were discovered by a bear hunter and his dog. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee’s time. I look forward to working with you as this bill expanding the Oregon Caves 

National Monument moves through the legislative process. I thank 

you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator, for 

your testimony. I want to include in the record the testimony of 

Representative John Dingell to the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

MICHIGAN, ON S. 3247 

I write to express my wholehearted support for S. 3247, the River Raisin National 

Battlefield Act, which will be under consideration in the Subcommittee on July 30. 

I have introduced companion legislation, H.R. 6740, in the House. It is my sincere 

hope that with your help we can see this legislation signed into law by the end of 

the year. 

S. 3247 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to accept the donation of lands 

related to the Battles of the River Raisin in Monroe or Wayne County, Michigan 

and to designate those lands as a unit of the National Park System, to be known 

as River Raisin National Battlefield Park. The River Raisin Battlefield is the site 

of a major engagement of the War of 1812 that occurred during the American campaign in the winter of 1813 to retake Fort Detroit from the British. Although the 

Americans repelled the British in first battle at the settlement, then known as 

Frenchtown, along the River Raisin, the second battle ended in major defeat and 

significant loss of life, causing General William Henry Harrison to describe the occurrences in Frenchtown as a ‘‘national calamity.’’ The disastrous loss gave birth to 

the rallying cry, ‘‘Remember the Raisin,’’ aiding recruitment efforts for Harrison’s 

spring 1813 campaign, and ultimately spurred the American troops to victory at the 

Battle of the Thames nine months later, effectively ending the War. 

Many reasons underscore the importance of support for S. 3247. I have outlined 

them below: 

• The Battle of the River Raisin is arguably the largest land engagement during 

the War of 1812. While the battle was a devastating loss to the American Army, 

the tragedy created a rallying point for U.S. troops and led to a decisive American victory effectively ending the War. 

• The casualties incurred at the River Raisin rank it among the most disastrous 

battles for the American Army during the entire War of 1812. 397 Americans 

were listed as killed or missing in action and 536 listed as prisoners of war. 

Designation of the site as a National Park will honor the sacrifice of those patriots who gave their lives in defense of our fledgling country. 

• The federal government will obtain River Raisin Battlefield at no cost. The good 

people of Monroe and/or Wayne Counties, Michigan will donate the battlefield 

to the federal government. 
13 

• The local community values the River Raisin Battlefield for its historical and 

national significance, and its designation as a National Park enjoys vast public 

support. Indeed, designation would have positive economic benefits for the local 

community and state through increased heritage tourism. • There is little debate that the River Raisin is a nationally significant site. • The National Park Service is the only entity with the expertise to interpret and 

care for a site of such national importance. We owe the many Americans who 

died at the River Raisin defending our young country the sufficient dignity and 

esteem inherent in becoming a unit of our National Park System without delay. 

Designation of the River Raisin battlefield as a National Park will afford the site 

with much deserved national recognition. Through enactment of S. 3247, not only 

can we commemorate the heroism of those who lost their lives during the Battle, 

but also add insight into an important chapter in our nation’s history. 

Senator AKAKA. Again, I want to welcome our witnesses today. 

We will include your full written statement in the hearing record. 

So I would ask that you please limit your remarks to no more than 

5 minutes. Following your statements we will have questions. 

So, Mr. Wenk, will you please begin with your statement? 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WENK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to present the Administration’s 

views on the 11 subjects on today’s agenda. I would like to submit 

our full statements for each of these subjects for the record and 

summarize the Administration’s position on these bills. 

The Department supports the following bills. 

S. 2093, which would designate a segment of the Missisquoi and 

Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

S. 2535, which would expand the boundary of Martin Van Buren 

National Historic Site. 

S. 2561, which would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a theme study to identify sites and resources to commemorate 

and interpret the cold war. 

S. 3011, which would expand the boundaries of Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site. 

S. 3158, which would extend the authority for Cape Cod National 

Seashore Advisory Commission. 

S. 3226, which would rename the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace 

National Historic Site in the State of Kentucky as the Abraham 

Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park. 

H.R. 5137, which would ensure that hunting remains a purpose 

of the New River Gorge National River. 

The reasons for our positions on these bills are explained in detail in our full statements. For some of the bills we are requesting 

that the committee make minor amendments to the bill language. 

Explanations of these requested amendments are also contained in 

the full statements. 

On the remaining four bills, the position of the Department is as 

follows. 

On S. 1816, which would authorize the Secretary of Interior to 

establish a commemorative Votes for Women History Trail Route 

in connection with Women’s Rights National Historical Park, the 

Department could support the bill if it is amended to delete the 

grant authorizations in sections three and four. These grant pro-
14 

grams would divert available resources from broader historic preservation purposes to specific sets of beneficiaries and duplicate existing authorities. 

The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with 

the committee to see if we could achieve the goals of these two sections within our existing authorities. 

On S. 3148, which would modify the boundary of Oregon Caves 

National Monument, the Department supports the intent of the 

bill, but recommends deferring action to give us the opportunity to 

explore ways to maintain continuity and interagency coordination 

on issues related to forest health and recreational opportunities. 

The U.S. Forest Service which currently manages the 4,070 acres 

that would be added to the monument, is working on a multi-year 

effort to reduce fuels under a comprehensive forest plan, which in 

turn would benefit monument resources that are at risk from fire 

and fire suppression damage. The Department also finds it important to acknowledge that hunting is allowed by the U.S. Forest 

Service on the lands that would be transferred to the National 

Park Service. 

We would like to continue our discussions with the Forest Service on these matters prior to further action on this legislation. 

On S. 3247, which would provide for the designation of the River 

Raisin National Battlefield Park in the State of Michigan, the Department recommends deferring action. Our recommendation does 

not detract from the significance and importance of this battlefield 

site and the historical events associated with this major engagement of the War of 1812. The special resource study and the National Historic Landmark nomination currently underway need to 

be completed so a determination could be made if the site is nationally significant and is both suitable and feasible to be designated 

as a unit of the National Park System. 

With public involvement these two efforts will provide needed information to determine the best path for preservation and interpretation of the battlefield. We expect both to be completed in 2 to 3 

years from now. 

On S. 3113, which would re-instate the Interim Management 

Strategy governing off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore, North Carolina pending the completion of an ORV management plan in issuance of a final rule for ORV use the Department cannot support the legislation. The Department supports allowing public use and access of National Seashores to the greatest 

extent possible while ensuring protection for wildlife there including the federally protected species that are the focus of our present 

concern. 

We believe that the April 30, 2008, consent decree will accomplish its objective better than the original 2007 Interim Management Strategy for the period until a final ORV plan and rule are 

adopted. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I’d be pleased to 

answer questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Wenk follow:] 
15 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 5137

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 5137, to ensure that 

hunting remains a purpose of the New River Gorge National River. 

The Department strongly supports enactment of H.R. 5137. This bill would amend 

Section 1106 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, the New River 

Gorge National River’s (park) authorizing legislation to require the Secretary of the 

Interior to permit hunting and fishing on National Park Service (NPS) lands within 

the park, instead of allowing this authority to be discretionary. If enacted, this bill 

would provide legislative direction to the Department on hunting and fishing at 

New River Gorge. We believe that enactment of the legislation will maintain important protections that allow hunting in the park to be managed consistent with the 

NPS mission to ensure public safety and to conserve the park’s natural resources, 

including wildlife and its habitat. The bill is consistent with other policy statements 

from Congress and the Park Service, and also advances the purposes of Executive 

Order 13443, ‘‘Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.’’ 

The New River Gorge National River was established in 1978, by Public Law 95- 

625, to conserve and protect 53 miles of the New River as a free-flowing waterway. 

Section 1106 states in part that ‘‘The Secretary may permit hunting and fishing on 

lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the boundaries of the New River 

Gorge National River in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, and he 

may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing shall 

be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment.’’ We believe that enactment of H.R. 5137 would 

have the narrow effect of requiring a continuation of an ongoing recreational activity 

in the park while maintaining the Service’s ability to continue to manage the activity in a manner that protects public safety and retains natural resource and wildlife 

conservation tools such as adaptive management. 

The park’s current GMP, dated November 1982, addressed hunting as an approved recreational activity, stating ‘‘Recreational hunting of game will be permitted 

in accordance with State regulations, with the exception of jointly designated limited closures for reasons of public safety or wildlife preservation.’’ Since adoption of 

the GMP, the park has permitted hunting on lands owned and administered by the 

NPS, except in areas of developed recreational facilities, such as river accesses and 

campgrounds, for reasons of public safety. 

In an April 10, 2002, letter, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility pointed out the need for a regulation to be promulgated to permit hunting at 

New River Gorge National River. On September 25, 2003, an interim final rule was 

published in the Federal Register that would have allowed hunting to continue 

within the park. The rule was written to become effective immediately. On October 

9, 2003, the NPS Director received a letter from a law firm representing the Fund 

for Animals that questioned the legality of the interim final regulation. 

The 2004 Interior Appropriations Act, Section 150, stated that ‘‘The National Park 

Service shall issue a special regulation concerning continued hunting at New River 

Gorge National River in compliance with the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedures Act, with opportunity for public comment, and shall also comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act as appropriate. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the September 25, 2003 interim final rule authorizing continued hunting at New River Gorge National River shall be in effect until the final special regulation supersedes it.’’ 

The NPS was about to begin a GMP for New River Gorge National River when 

Congress enacted the 2004 directive. As part of the GMP, it was decided that the 

NPS would undertake an extensive public involvement process on the issue of hunting within the park. The draft GMP includes four action alternatives; three of those 

alternatives would allow continued hunting within the park. About 300 people attended one or more of the three public meetings held on the hunting issue, and the 

public was overwhelmingly in favor of the continuation of hunting at New River 

Gorge National River. The draft GMP is being finalized, and we hope to release it 

for public review by the end of this year. 

As part of the process to revise the GMP, the NPS contracted with the Virginia 

Tech Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Services to assess the impacts of hunting 

in the park. The assessment, which was finalized in 2006, concluded the ‘‘hunting 

conducted in accordance with existing laws and regulations should have no adverse 

impact on the fauna and flora within the boundaries of New River Gorge’’. We do 
16 

not believe that enactment of this legislation would have any effect on this sciencebased assessment and its conclusions. 

The NPS is cognizant of the importance of hunting to the local community as well 

as the ecological implications of hunting within New River Gorge National River. 

The ‘‘no hunting alternative’’ has proven to be very controversial with the State of 

West Virginia and with local hunters. However, the NPS has determined that under 

the existing legislation the park must include an analysis of the no hunting alternative to ensure that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

are adequately met. When the draft GMP is released for public review it will include 

a preferred alternative stating the NPS’s position on continued hunting at New 

River Gorge National River, regardless of whether or not this legislation is enacted. 

After the GMP is completed, NPS would be required to promulgate a special regulation for any preferred alternative involving hunting on park lands within the national river. 

Executive Order 13443, ‘‘Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation’’ was signed by President Bush on August 17, 2007, directing the Department 

of the Interior and other Cabinet officers to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. We are pleased that H.R. 5137 is consistent with this direction and would provide a specific way to contribute toward the results of E.O. 13443. 

That concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you or any 

members of the subcommittee may have. 

S. 1816

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1816, a bill to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to establish a commemorative ‘‘Votes for Women History Trail Route’’ in connection with Women’s Rights National Historical Park. The 

trail route would link sites that are historically and thematically associated with the 

struggle for women’s suffrage in the State of New York. 

The Department could support this legislation if amended to delete grant authorizations in sections 3 and 4. 

The Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-277) provided funding for a Women’s Rights National History Trail feasibility study. The 

study team documented women’s rights history-related properties reaching from 

Maine to Virginia, including the District of Columbia. The largest numbers of properties in the Northeast were in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State 

of New York. The study team considered a long-distance trail in the corridor between Boston and Buffalo, but determined that this concept was not viable based 

upon the lack of properties between these two places. The study also found that the 

trail would not meet the criteria as a national historic trail under the National 

Trails System Act. 

The study concluded that significant concentrations of resources associated with 

the struggle for women’s suffrage in the United States lie within an area stretching 

from Syracuse, New York in the east through the Finger Lakes region westerly to 

Rochester. In the midst of this concentration of resources are the towns of Seneca 

Falls and Waterloo, New York, where the first women’s rights convention in America was planned and held in 1848. Women’s Rights National Historical Park, established in 1980 by Public Law 96-607, preserves and interprets the important sites 

associated with the formal beginning of the struggle for equal rights for women in 

the United States. It was at Seneca Falls in 1848 that the Declaration of Sentiments 

was signed, advocating for political, economic, educational, religious, and societal 

equality for women. 

The final report described three concepts that could support the recognition, promotion, and protection of properties associated with women’s rights history: A 

‘‘Votes for Women’’ History Trail, a vehicular tour route linking together a number 

of historic properties associated with women’s suffrage in New York State; a National Women’s Rights History Project focused on expanding the number of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places that are associated with 

women’s rights; and a National Women’s Rights History Project and Partnerships 

Network that would offer financial and technical assistance to participating members for interpretive and educational program development through the use of partnerships and matching grants. A final report was transmitted to Congress in January 2004. 

Section 2 of S. 1816 would amend Public Law 96-607 to establish a ‘‘Votes for 

Women History Trail Route’’, a vehicular tour route linking sites associated with the 

72-year struggle for women’s suffrage across New York State, a movement which 
17 

spread throughout the nation. The trail route would be administered by the National Park Service through Women’s Rights National Historical Park. The National 

Park Service would be authorized to support the development of interpretive signage and to develop and disseminate interpretive and educational materials and 

media to provide public understanding and appreciation of the resources along the 

trail route and their respective roles in the women’s suffrage movement. Sites along 

the trail route could include the Susan B. Anthony House in Rochester, the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, and Harriet Tubman Home in Auburn. 

Section 2 of the bill would also authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative 

agreements with other Federal agencies, the State of New York, and other governmental and private entities to facilitate the development of the trail route and to 

provide technical and financial assistance to such organizations to achieve the purposes of the legislation. The public/private partnerships envisioned would provide 

opportunities for the public to learn about the rich, yet largely unknown history of 

the struggle for women’s suffrage in the United States, while enhancing preservation of the remaining tangible resources associated with this effort. 

Section 3 of the bill would establish a National Women’s Rights History Project 

National Registry that would authorize the Secretary to provide grants to State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to assist in surveying, evaluating, and nominating women’s rights history properties for consideration to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Such activities are already within the purview of 

existing SHPO responsibilities. This legislation would therefore duplicate SHPO responsibilities, and divert limited available funds for broad SHPO responsibilities to 

a specific set of beneficiaries and purposes. SHPOs already have the ability to add 

sites to the National Park Service’s website, ‘‘Places Where Women Made History.’’ 

The website lists historic places associated with women’s history in New York and 

Massachusetts, travel itineraries, maps, photographs, and other information about 

these historic properties. The website has the capacity to provide opportunities for 

citizens of this nation, and those outside of the United States, to learn about the 

sites and people associated with the struggle for women’s rights in America. These 

struggles remain relevant in American society today, and provide inspiration to others seeking equal rights in their own countries. 

Finally, section 4 of S. 1816 provides for the establishment of a National Women’s 

Rights History Project Partnerships Network, managed through a nongovernmental 

entity, which would offer matching grants and technical assistance for the purpose 

of providing interpretive, educational, and historic preservation program development. The establishment of such a network would earmark historic preservation 

grants for a specific set of beneficiaries and would divert available resources for 

broader historic preservation purposes. NPS already has the authority to enter into 

collaborative proposals that could involve a variety of property types and that would 

be anchored by one or more National Register-eligible properties. 

We believe that particular aspects of S. 1816 provide the opportunity for all to 

gain a clear understanding and appreciation of the sacrifices and contributions of 

those associated with the quest for women’s rights in the past, and for those who 

continue their work today throughout the world. However, we also believe that particular aspects of this legislation divert available resources from broader historic 

preservation purposes to specific sets of beneficiaries and duplicates existing authorities. The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to further review existing NPS programs to determine if we could achieve 

the goals of section 3 and 4 of the bill within our existing authorities. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to respond to 

any questions that you and the committee may have. 

S. 2093

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2093, a bill to amend the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for study for potential addition to the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. 

The Department supports enactment of this legislation with the amendments described in this testimony. However, the Department feels that priority should be 

given to the previously authorized studies for potential units of the National Park 

System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet 

been transmitted to the Congress. On April 24, 2008, the Department testified in 

support of the House companion bill, H.R. 3667. 
18 

S. 2093 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the segment of the 

Missisquoi and Trout Rivers from the headwaters of the rivers downstream to the 

confluence of that segment with the Missisquoi Bay of Lake Champlain in the State 

of Vermont. A report that describes the results of the study is required to be submitted to Congress not later than three years after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Two segments of the Missisquoi River are listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory of candidate wild and scenic rivers. The mouth of the river includes the 

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge which comprises the Missisquoi River Delta and 

Missisquoi Bay on Lake Champlain. Upper portions of the Missisquoi and Trout 

Rivers are prized for their scenic beauty, recreational boating and fishing opportunities, and historic and archaeological values. 

The Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail parallels much of the upper Missisquoi River, 

and offers excellent potential for public access and recreational opportunities linked 

to the river and the broader river valley. Portions of the river also serve as the route 

for the Northern Forest Canoe Trail, based on the river’s historical significance as 

a travel route for the Abenaki Indians. Great Falls on the upper Missisquoi is recognized as Vermont’s largest undammed falls, and is part of a series of spectacular 

gorges and falls located on the upper river. 

The State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has been working extensively with communities of the upper Missisquoi watershed to address river management issues related primarily to agricultural run-off affecting water quality of 

the river and Missisquoi Bay/Lake Champlain. The forum that has been created 

through these efforts offers an ideal opportunity for the National Park Service to 

join the ANR and local communities in a comprehensive study that would add 

broader natural, recreational, and cultural considerations to the issues already 

being considered. The ANR and affected communities of the upper Missisquoi have 

all expressed their support for such a partnership-based study. 

The Department notes that several large hydroelectric generating facilities are located on the lower Missisquoi River, making it inappropriate for wild and scenic 

river consideration. In addition, a segment of the upper Missisquoi River bows north 

into Canada, and should be excluded from this study effort. Therefore, we recommend S. 2093 be amended to direct the study effort to the following river segments: 

• The approximately 25-mile segment of the upper Missisquoi from Enosburg 

Falls upstream to the Canada border in East Richford; 

• The approximately 25-mile segment of the upper Missisquoi from the Canada 

border in North Troy upstream to the headwaters in Lowell; 

• Approximately 20 miles of the Trout River from its confluence with the 

Missisquoi to its headwaters. 

The Department would also like to work with the committee on several technical 

amendments to make this bill consistent with other recently enacted wild and scenic 

river study bills. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer 

any questions you or other committee members may have regarding this bill. 

S. 2535

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2535, a bill to revise the 

boundary of Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of this bill. 

S. 2535 would expand the boundary of the Martin Van Buren National Historic 

Site, located in Kinderhook, New York, by including 261 acres of land surrounding 

Lindenwald, the home and farm of the eighth President of the United States. The 

bill also provides to the Secretary of the Interior land acquisition authority from 

willing sellers, by donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or by 

exchange. 

The boundary expansion would help visitors to understand the importance of agriculture in President Van Buren’s life and the role of the changing agricultural economy before the Civil War. In addition to protecting Lindenwald in its historic agricultural setting, the legislation offers increased opportunities for public enjoyment 

of the park and surrounding land as part of an overall plan that was developed in 

concert with local landowners and governments. 

The proposed acreage includes a farm cottage, one of only three surviving structures associated with President Van Buren, and agricultural lands that once were 

a part of his original 226-acre farm and are still in active cultivation. Preserving 
19 

these scenic and historic resources is critical to the future of the park. The expanded 

boundary would also allow the National Park Service (NPS) to replace temporary 

operational facilities, including a maintenance garage directly behind Lindenwald, 

and administrative facilities now housed in trailers, with permanent buildings more 

appropriate to the historic setting. 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site was established by Public Law 93-486 

to commemorate the life and work of President Martin Van Buren through the preservation and interpretation of his home and farm. The 39-acre park predominately 

consists of a prominent mansion located within the present boundary, a factor that 

narrows the focus of interpretation to a traditional house tour. Although agrarian 

ideals formed a central theme of Van Buren’s political philosophy, agricultural components of the 226 original acres of Lindenwald are neither fully protected nor available for interpretation. 

Kinderhook, New York, part of the Hudson River Valley, was a rural farming area 

when the site was established in 1974. Since then, suburban, residential and commercial development has begun to threaten the area surrounding the park. This 

prompted the NPS to undertake a comprehensive study of the area in 2003, and to 

address concerns such as protecting the historic setting and enhancing opportunities 

for interpretation. The boundary study identified 24 contributing characteristics and 

features outside of the current park boundary that can be traced directly to Van 

Buren’s tenure at Lindenwald. Expansion of the boundary to include these resources 

will provide for future protection of park-related resources and scenic values, and 

increase public understanding and appreciation of the life and ideals of Martin Van 

Buren, a preeminent politician during the Nation’s turbulent antebellum years. 

Park managers have a close working relationship with the present owners of the 

land proposed for addition to the boundary of the park, some of whom will continue 

to farm the land and have agreed to make portions of their land available to visitors 

for a trail to enhance interpretation of the park. Within the proposed 261-acre 

boundary, 25 acres are expected to be donated in fee to the NPS and 173 acres are 

expected to be donated in the form of conservation easements. The NPS would seek 

to acquire the remaining 63 acres through purchase of easements or fee interests 

from willing sellers. If acquired in fee, the cost would be approximately $667,000, 

subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations. The majority of the 

land will remain in agricultural use. Monitoring of the conservation easements will 

be done by NPS personnel through the park’s existing operations budget. The conservation easement lands would remain on the local tax rolls. 

The only structure that would be acquired on the 261 acres is an 800-square foot 

historic cottage that is in sound condition, but will require some improvements such 

as painting the wood siding and repairing decaying window frames. Some of this 

cost could be paid through park maintenance funds, but if more extensive repairs 

are needed depending on the future use of the cottage, funds would be subject to 

NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations. The future use of the cottage 

will be determined in the general management planning process, which just began 

for the existing park. 

Should this legislation be signed into law, the general management planning process also would determine the need to relocate operational, maintenance or administrative facilities on the lands included in the park by this boundary addition, to 

move some of these facilities outside the park boundaries or to address the code and 

safety issues in the facilities’ current location. The park currently rents two doublewide trailers for administrative facilities, and houses curatorial storage in a deteriorating barn. Located adjacent to the trailers is a shed, built by NPS, that is used 

for visitor contact. The park also uses a garage for a maintenance facility that has 

serious code and worker safety issues and that is intruding on the historic setting 

of the Van Buren house. It is estimated it would cost $1.9-$2.8 million to address 

these two priority issues with or without a boundary change, since the temporary 

facilities are inadequate to be used in the long-term. Any final decisions would be 

made as part of the general management planning process, and if included in the 

final plan, would be subject to the budget prioritization process of the NPS. 

This legislation enjoys broad support from various constituencies interested in 

conservation, historic preservation, and agricultural sustainability, including the 

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation; the Columbia Land Conservancy; the Open Space Institute; the Columbia County Board of Supervisors; the Friends of Lindenwald; the Kinderhook Town Board; the Kinderhook 

Village Board; the Valatie Village Board; the Columbia County Tourism Department; and many other public organizations and local agencies. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I am pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 
20 

S. 2561

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on S. 2561. This bill would require that the Secretary of the Interior 

conduct a theme study to identify sites and resources associated with the Cold War 

and to recommend ways to commemorate and interpret that period of our nation’s 

history. 

The Department supports this legislation as we believe that it is wholly appropriate for the National Park Service to undertake a study that will help ensure that 

the history of the Cold War era is preserved for future generations of Americans. 

In the 108th Congress, the Department testified in support of similar legislation, 

S. 452; however there was no other action taken on the bill. 

S. 2561 would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a National Historic 

Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources in the United States that are 

significant to the Cold War. The bill specifically provides that the study consider the 

inventory of Cold War resources that has been compiled by the Department of Defense and other historical studies and research on various types of military resources. It also requires the study to include recommendations for commemorating 

these resources and for establishing cooperative arrangements with other entities. 

We want to note that the study would not cover every resource that may be significant to the history of the Cold War as it affected our nation, since it would not 

include sites outside the United States such as U.S. installations in Germany or 

South Korea. It is necessary to limit the scope of the study to sites and resources 

within the United States, as S. 2561 does, because we do not have the authority 

to identify resources that are beyond our borders for potential National Historic 

Landmark status. 

In addition to authorizing the theme study, S. 2561 would require the Secretary 

to prepare and publish an interpretive handbook on the Cold War and to disseminate information gathered through the study in other ways. S. 2561 would authorize 

appropriations of $500,000 to carry out the legislation. 

National Historic Landmark theme studies are funded from a variety of sources 

including, in some cases, the special resource study budget, which is about $935,000 

in FY 2008. There are 37 studies previously authorized by Congress that are being 

funded from the special resource study budget, nearly half of which will have at 

least some funding needs beyond Fiscal Year 2008. Our highest priority is to complete pending studies, though we expect to start newly authorized studies as soon 

as funds are made available. 

The National Historic Landmarks program was established by the Act of August 

21, 1935, commonly known as the Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C. 461 et. seq.) and 

is implemented according to 36 CFR Part 65. The program’s mission is to identify 

those places that best illustrate the themes, events, or persons that are nationally 

significant to the history of the United States and that retain a high degree of integrity. Potential national historic landmarks are often identified through theme studies such as the one that would be authorized by this legislation. 

Theme studies are not the same as special resource studies, which assess the suitability and feasibility of adding a site to the National Park System. Theme studies 

may identify sites that may be appropriate candidates for special resource studies, 

but these studies themselves do not evaluate sites for possible addition to the National Park System. Therefore, theme studies do not have the potential to lead directly to new operation, maintenance or other costs for the National Park Service. 

For example, in 2008, the National Park Service completed and transmitted to 

Congress a National Landmark Theme Study on the World War II Home Front. 

Through a partnership with the Organization of American Historians (OAH), NPS 

focused on themes that saw transformation during this period: civil rights with regard to an integrated work force, migration and resettlement to support mobilization, changes in gender roles as women entered the work force, labor relations as 

unions flexed new-found powers, economic mobilization and government cooperation 

with the private sector to support the war effort, technological advances, popular 

culture, and architectural change. The National Park Service is also conducting several other theme studies, including one on American Civil Rights, one related to the 

history of the labor movement, another on the earliest inhabitants of Eastern North 

America, and another on sites associated with Japanese Americans during World 

War II. 

At the moment, the history of the Cold War has some presence in the National 

Park System and on the two lists of historic sites maintained by the National Park 

Service. The National Park System includes one unit related to the Cold War, the 

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota, which Congress estab-
21 

lished in 1999 to preserve and interpret the role of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in our nation’s defense system. 

Out of 2,444 designated national historic landmarks, at least five recognize civilian or military aspects of Cold War history; and out of approximately 76,000 listings 

on the National Register of Historic Places, at least 17 (including the five landmarks) are related to the Cold War. The relatively small number of recognized sites 

is due in large part to the fact that the Cold War has only recently been viewed 

as historically important. With or without a theme study, these numbers would likely increase over time, and the Department of Defense could take steps on its own 

to identify these sites under their jurisdiction. 

National Historic Landmark program regulations require consultation with Federal, state, and local governments; national and statewide associations; and a variety of other interested parties. Through partnering with a national historical organization, using a peer-review process, and consulting with appropriate subject experts 

as well as the general public, the National Park Service would ensure that the 

broadest historical perspectives are represented in any study it undertakes. 

In addition, we have been informed by the Department of Justice that the provisions of the bill that would require the Secretary of the Interior to make recommendations to Congress concerning federal protection for Cold War sites raise 

concerns with regard to the Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, which reserves to the President the power to decide whether it is necessary or expedient for 

the Executive Branch to make legislative policy recommendations to the Congress. 

The Administration would be pleased to provide language to resolve these constitutional concerns. 

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

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

S. 3011

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3011, a bill to amend 

the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site Act of 1991 to expand the boundaries 

of the historic site, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports S. 3011 with an amendment to provide the correct map 

reference for the boundary expansion. On June 5, 2008, the Department testified in 

support of H.R. 4828, an almost identical bill, before the House Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. 

S. 3011 would amend Public Law 102-304 to adjust the boundary of the Palo Alto 

Battlefield National Historic Site (park) to include the addition of approximately 34 

acres. The lands added to the boundary would remain under the ownership of the 

Brownsville Community Foundation (Foundation), Brownsville, Texas. The Foundation and the National Park Service (NPS) would co-manage and administer the 

lands added to the boundary through a cooperative agreement. There would be no 

acquisition costs associated with the boundary expansion and we estimate NPS’s 

management, administrative, interpretive, resource protection, and maintenance 

costs to be approximately $200,000 annually. Additional infrastructure improvements would include an ADA accessible trail, a visitor parking lot, trail and pavilion 

benches, the resaca overlook, interpretive panels and replica cannons, an NPS sign, 

a security gate, and utilities at an estimated cost of $360,000. 

The land proposed for addition to the park is known as ‘Resaca de la Palma’, a 

National Historic Landmark. Located approximately four miles south of the existing 

park boundary and in the Heart of the City of Brownsville, Texas, the land is closely 

connected to Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site, the only unit in the National Park System to commemorate the Mexican War, both historically and culturally. 

Resaca de la Palma is the site of the second battle of the U.S. War with Mexico. 

The battle proved decisive for American forces and forced Mexican troops back 

across the Rio Grande River. The site is hallowed ground for many, including descendents of more than 214 individuals from the United States and Mexico who lost 

their lives at this site on May 9, 1846. After the battle, many visitors to Palo Alto 

and Resaca de la Palma viewed the land as having been transformed by the bloody 

sacrifices made there. That sentiment remains today and many residents of Brownsville believe that both of the battlefields should be preserved to honor the memory 

of the soldiers who fought and died there. 

Although the original battlefield at Resaca de la Palma extended over hundreds 

of acres, today only 34 acres remain undeveloped. In essence, Resaca de la Palma 

represents an oasis, surrounded by a developing city. In addition to its rich cultural 

heritage, these 34 acres provide habitat for migratory and resident birds and small 
22 

mammals. The battlefield site also represents a typical but disappearing landscape 

of the Rio Grande delta and conserves native chaparral, prairie, and brush. 

Resaca de la Palma is easily accessible to community members and visitors to the 

area. The 34 acres included in this boundary adjustment also represent a rare community green space that will be preserved. Existing structures include an interpretive trail and exhibits, a covered shelter, and a viewing platform overlooking the 

resaca, the literal translation of which is: the dry river bed of the palms. 

The National Park System includes many successful examples of philanthropic efforts that have added immeasurably to the preservation of our nation’s natural and 

cultural treasures. The partnership between the NPS and the Foundation to comanage Resaca de la Palma is another successful example of this type of effort. 

Many hours have been donated toward preserving Resaca de la Palma by board 

members, the park, and individuals in the community. Additionally, several private 

and public organizations have donated time and money to ensure Resaca de la 

Palma remains protected and accessible to visitors. These include the Boy and Girl 

Scouts of America, the City of Brownsville, the Cameron County Sheriff Department, and the Texas Department of Transportation. 

The Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site 1988 General Management Plan 

proposed including Resaca de la Palma within the park’s administrative boundary. 

This legislation would achieve that goal. However, without this legislation, the NPS 

would be limited in its ability to interpret, maintain, or manage the Resaca de la 

Palma area for future generations. 

We suggest one amendment to S. 3011. On page 2, lines 13 and 14, the correct 

map information is: ‘‘entitled Palo Alto Battlefield NHS Proposed Boundary Expansion, numbered 469/80,012, and dated May 21, 2008.’’ 

That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

or other members of the subcommittee might have. 

S. 3113

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 S. 

3113, a bill to reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle 

(ORV) use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore), North Carolina, pending 

the completion of an ORV management plan and issuance of a final rule for ORV 

use. The Interim Management Strategy was adopted on July 13, 2007 by the National Park Service to provide resource protection guidance in areas subject to ORV 

use. The bill would make inapplicable the consent decree that implements a settlement agreement modifying this Interim Management Strategy, to which all parties 

involved in a lawsuit agreed just three months ago. 

The Department supports allowing public use and access at Cape Hatteras National Seashore to the greatest extent possible while ensuring protection for the Seashore’s wildlife, including the federally protected species that are the focus of 

present concern, for this and future generations of park visitors. Because we believe 

that the April 30, 2008, consent decree will accomplish this objective better than the 

original 2007 Interim Management Strategy for the period until a final ORV plan 

and rule are adopted, the Department cannot support S. 3113. 

Background on Protected Species and ORV Management at Cape Hatteras 

Beach driving, also known as ORV use, predates the 1937 authorization of the 

National Seashore and has become a popular method of access for recreational pursuits such as swimming, fishing, and water sports. 

Executive Order 11644 (1972), amended by Executive Order 11989 (1977), requires the National Park Service to issue regulations on the designation of specific 

trails and areas for ORV use based upon resource protection, visitor safety, and 

minimization of conflicts among uses of agency lands. The Executive Order directs 

that these ‘‘[a]reas and trails . . . be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or 

significant disruption of wildlife habitats.’’ Furthermore, ‘‘. . . whenever [the agency] determines that the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is causing considerable 

adverse effects on... wildlife (or) wildlife habitat, [it shall] immediately close 

such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicle causing such effects until such 

time as [it] determines that such adverse effects have been eliminated and that 

measures have been implemented to prevent future occurrence.’’ In response to the 

Presidents’ direction, the National Park Service promulgated the regulation at 36 

C.F.R. § 4.10, which requires the Park Service to designate, by special regulation, 

ORV use areas and routes in compliance with Executive Order 11644. In 1978, the 

Park Service drafted an interim ORV management plan for Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore but never finalized it. In 1973 and 1990, the Park Service drafted ORV 

regulations for the Seashore but never promulgated them. 
23 

To date, the National Park Service has not met the requirements of its own regulation. However, subsequent to a feasibility assessment process which queried numerous stakeholder groups, in December 2007 the Secretary of the Interior established a negotiated rulemaking committee under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA) to aid the Service in the development of an ORV management plan and 

special regulation to meet the requirements of 36 C.F.R.§ 4.10. The committee, 

which has met five times thus far in 2008, is making progress toward this goal. The 

committee is scheduled to meet again in September, October, November, and December 2008. Under the April 30, 2008, consent decree, the ORV management plan 

must be completed by December 31, 2010, and the special regulation by April 1, 

2011. 

The Seashore is the breeding site for many species of beach-nesting shorebirds 

and waterbirds, including the federally-listed threatened piping plover, the statelisted 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 the 

above species have experienced breeding population declines at Cape Hatteras over 

the past 10-20 years. For example, in 1989 the Seashore had 15 breeding pairs of 

the federally threatened piping plover. By 2001-2005, the Seashore experienced only 

2-3 pairs attempting to nest each year. The numbers of colonial waterbird nests on 

the Seashore have declined from 1,155 nests in 1999 to 217 nests in 2007. Individual colonial waterbird species have experienced the following reduction in nests 

on the Seashore from 1999 to 2007: gull-billed tern, 103 nests to zero; least tern, 

306 nests to 196; common tern, 440 nests to 19; and black skimmer, 306 nests to 

2. American oystercatcher numbers on the Seashore have declined from 41 breeding 

pairs in 1999 to 22 breeding pairs in 2007. 

While a complex array of variables including weather events and predation contribute to these declines, human disturbance is certainly a factor, reflecting the inherent conflict resulting from the fact that peak visitor demand for access to key 

breeding sites, which are also popular fishing sites, occurs at approximately the 

same time as the primary period of wildlife breeding activity. The overall trend of 

declining numbers and the low numbers for specific species (piping plover, gullbilled tern, common tern, and black skimmer) at Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

has been of particular concern, because the National Park Service by law and policy 

is committed to preventing impairment of park resources, and preserving and restoring the natural abundance, diversity and distribution of native animal populations and ecosystems in which they occur in units of the National Park System. 

In July 2007, the National Park Service approved an Interim Protected Species 

Management Strategy and Environmental Assessment for the Seashore. This Interim Management Strategy provides guidance for the protection of beach-nesting 

shorebirds and sea turtles, and a threatened beach plant species, until a long-term 

ORV management plan and regulation can be developed. Meanwhile, in consultation 

with the negotiated rulemaking committee that was established in December 2007, 

the Service is working on the development of a long-term ORV management plan 

and environmental impact statement. 

In October 2007, Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center (Plaintiffs), filed a complaint 

in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina challenging the 

Interim Management Strategy. In December, the complaint was amended to include 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as co-defendant based on Endangered Species Act 

claims related to its biological opinion. Additionally, two local counties, Dare and 

Hyde, and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, which is a coalition of 

local ORV and fishing groups, were granted intervenor status by the court. All of 

these entities are members of the negotiated rulemaking committee. 

On February 20, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction 

requesting the court to direct the National Park Service to completely close six key 

breeding sites (Bodie Island Spit, Cape Point, South Beach, Hatteras Spit, North 

Ocracoke, and South Ocracoke) to ORV use on a year-round basis consistent with 

the 2005 management recommendations provided to the Park Service by scientists 

from the U.S. Geological Survey (referred to as the ‘‘USGS protocols.’’) These six 

sites are also the most popular fishing areas that are traditionally accessed by ORV 

users. 

In April 2008, the Plaintiffs, Federal defendants, and intervenors jointly filed a 

proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court to implement a settlement 

reached by the parties, which the court issued on April 30. Reaching this settlement 

prevented a complete year-round shutdown of ORV access to the six popular fishing 

areas. The consent decree is not expected to affect the fall or winter fishing season. 

It will also allow many areas of the beach to remain open to recreational use, even 

during the breeding season. 
24 

The consent decree provides for increased resource protection during the breeding 

season, while allowing for continued ORV access to the six key sites during the nonbreeding season. It addresses individual species concerns and specifies buffer sizes 

and types, timing restrictions, and monitoring efforts to protect beach-nesting bird 

species, including piping plover, American oystercatcher, and four species of colonial 

waterbirds; and three species of federally protected sea turtles. It settles all claims 

raised in the lawsuit and does not set a precedent for the long-term ORV management plan or the regulation. 

Compared to the Interim Management Strategy, the consent decree includes larger, non-discretionary buffer distances to protect beach-nesting birds once breeding 

activity is observed. It also includes a new prohibition on night driving on seashore 

beaches from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. during the sea turtle nesting season. The 

consent decree does not directly mandate an outright closure of the six popular fishing areas. The National Park Service had to close these areas earlier this summer, 

however, to comply with the consent decree’s criteria for determining buffer distances once breeding activity was observed. These areas are being reopened as 

breeding activity concludes. We are working hard to keep the public informed of 

beach access status. 

Many sections of beach have remained open to ORV and pedestrian access during 

the breeding season. As of July 17, 2008, of approximately 66.6 total miles of Seashore beaches, 26.1 miles were open to ORVs and pedestrians, an additional 25.5 

miles were open to pedestrians only (totalling 51.6 miles open and accessible to pedestrians), 3.7 miles were ‘‘open to pedestrians’’ but access was not practical, and 

11.3 miles were closed to ORVs and pedestrians to protect breeding and nesting 

areas. 

Preliminary Results of Resource Protection Measures Taken in Accordance with the 

Consent Decree 

Although the breeding season is not yet completed, it appears that actions taken 

under the consent decree have been beneficial for resource protection. Under the 

consent decree, the Seashore has experienced an increase in the number of breeding 

pairs of piping plover from 6 pair in 2006 and 2007, to 11 pairs in 2008. As of July 

19, 2008, there were 83 sea turtle nests on the Seashore compared to 49 nests last 

year at this time. 

S. 3113 

S. 3113 would reinstate the Interim Strategy for ORV use at the Seashore and 

declare the consent decree inapplicable. A return to managing the Seashore under 

the Interim Management Strategy would result in a reduction in the size, frequency, 

and timing of the buffers protecting federally and state listed species, and a likely 

reduction in the increase in nesting activity observed in 2008. 

We reiterate our commitment to providing for everyone’s enjoyment of Cape Hatteras National Seashore’s wonderful resources to the greatest extent possible while 

ensuring protection of park resources, including federally protected species, for this 

and future generations. We strongly believe that completion of the long-term ORV 

management plan and special regulation is the best way to involve all interested 

parties, including the general public, and meet the Service’s responsibilities under 

the Endangered Species Act, National Park Service Organic Act, Cape Hatteras National Seashore enabling act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other applicable laws. 

Through this process, the National Park Service will determine how to provide appropriate resource protection and reasonable visitor access at the Seashore. While 

we continue to implement the consent decree, we are actively working with all interested stakeholders in the development of the regulation and plan, and we look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee, the local communities, and the 

involved stakeholders as these processes move forward. 

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

S. 3148

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the 

views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3148, a bill to modify the boundary 

of the Oregon Caves National Monument, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports the intent of S. 3148 as consistent with the General 

Management Plan (GMP) for the park but recommends deferring action on the bill 

to give us the opportunity to explore ways to maintain continuity and interagency 

coordination on issues related to forest health and recreational opportunities. 

S. 3148 would adjust the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument to 

include the addition of approximately 4,070 acres to enhance the protection of the 
25 

resources associated with the monument and to increase public recreation opportunities. The lands that would be added are currently managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service as part of the Siskiyou National Forest. 

In 1907, the Secretary of the Interior withdrew approximately 2,560 acres for the 

purposes of establishing a national monument. The 1909 presidential proclamation 

establishing Oregon Caves National Monument included only 480 acres. The monument was managed by the U.S. Forest Service until its administration was transferred to the National Park Service in 1933. The remaining withdrawal outside of 

the monument is administered by the USFS as part of the Siskiyou National Forest. 

This bill restores these lands to the monument boundary. 

There would be no acquisition costs associated with the boundary expansion and 

while a formal estimate has not yet been established, we anticipate National Park 

Service’s management, administrative, interpretive, resource protection, and maintenance costs could be approximately $300,000–$750,000 annually. 

The explorer Joaquin Miller extolled ‘‘The Wondrous marble halls of Oregon!’’ 

when speaking about the newly proclaimed Oregon Caves National Monument in 

1909. Oregon Caves is one of the few marble caves in the country that is accessible 

to the public. This park, tucked up in the winding roads of southern Oregon, is 

known for its remoteness, the cave majesty, and the unusual biota. The park is located in the Siskiyou Mountains and is part of a bioregion that has among the nation’s highest biodiversities of vascular plants and animals—more than is found 

even in the tropics. The high rate of biodiversity is due to the diverse temperatures, 

moisture regimes, climates, bedrock, and productivity. The serpentine caves, cliffs, 

streams, springs and granitic formations seem to be just the right size for diversity—not so large that rare plants will continue to propagate, but not too small that 

extinction is high or migrants cannot find it. 

The stream flowing from the cave entrance is a tributary to a watershed that 

empties into the Pacific Ocean. There are no human-made obstructions that would 

prevent salmon migration, which makes this the only cave in the National Park 

Service with an unobstructed link to the ocean. 

The caves are nationally significant and a favorite visit for school kids and travelers alike. They remain alive and healthy because of the watershed above them. 

The park recognized this when developing the 1998 GMP and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement. The plan recommended the inclusion of the watershed 

into the park to provide for better cave protection and to protect the surface and 

subsurface hydrology and the public water supply. Because of changes in the recreational use of the lands since that time, additional discussions with the USFS are 

warranted. 

S. 3148 would designate approximately 7.6 miles of these waterways as wild, scenic, or recreational under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean designated waterway in the country, the River Styx, which flows through 

the caves. This designation provides no additional protections to land and water resources. 

S. 3148 also provides authority for the Secretary to protect the water quality— 

in the caves and for public consumption—and to administer the lands in accordance 

with current laws and regulations. The Secretary is also directed to carry out ecological forest restoration activities that would establish a fire regime, manage revegetation projects, and reduce the risk of losing key ecosystem components. The 

land that this bill would transfer is categorized by the U.S. Forest Service as condition class 3—high risk of fire. Most of it is also designated as Late Successional Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan. We understand that the Forest Service is 

currently working on a multi-year effort to reduce fuels under a comprehensive forest plan which is intended to help restore the appropriate role of fire in the ecosystem, which in turn would benefit monument resources that are at risk from fire 

and fire suppression damage. 

Section 7 of S. 3148 provides for voluntary relinquishment of grazing leases or 

permits by permittees to the Secretary of the Interior for authorized grazing on 

BLM-managed lands within the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment. Under the bill, 

the Secretary is required to accept the donation of those permits or leases from grazing. 

The Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment is located 15 miles from the OCNM boundary, and the proposed legislation does not identify a clear link between this allotment and the monument. This grazing allotment has been designated under the 

Medford Resource Management Plan, and subsequent changes in designation are 

possible through the land use planning process if land and resource data indicate 

that grazing should no longer be supported on this allotment. 
26 

The BLM is opposes this provision. However, the BLM also recognizes the value 

of working cooperatively and collaboratively with local stakeholders to fulfill its multiple use mission on BLM lands. 

While the transfer of these lands to the National Park Service would increase interpretive and educational opportunities for visitors, the Department finds it important to acknowledge and bring to the committee’s attention a current recreational 

activity that would be affected by enactment of this legislation. Hunting is allowed 

by the U.S. Forest Service on the lands in question. As currently drafted, the legislation would extend the monument boundaries in a manner that prohibits continuation of hunting on these lands. The Department supports continuation of the diverse and traditional recreation opportunities on these lands 

To insure issues affecting the current forest health activities and recreational opportunities on the lands are adequately considered, we recommend the committee 

defer action on the legislation at this time. We will continue our discussions with 

the U.S. Forest Service on these matters. 

Should the committee decide to move ahead on the legislation, the Department 

recommends one technical amendment to the language involving the transfer of the 

land from one Federal agency to another. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Suggested technical amendment to S. 3148 

On page 5, line 14, after ‘‘transfer’’ insert ‘‘administrative jurisdiction of’’ 

S. 3158

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3158, to extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission. 

The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 3158, which would amend Section 8(a) of Public Law 87-126 to extend the life of the 10-member Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission (commission) from 2008 until 2018. The Administration transmitted a similar proposal to Congress on May 19, 2008. 

The commission was authorized in 1961, as part of the national seashore’s enabling legislation and began operation in 1966. It has been legislatively and administratively reauthorized several times. The commission was last reauthorized for a 

ten-year period by Public Law 105-280 and is set to expire on September 26, 2008. 

The commission is an exemplary example within the National Park System of a 

partner in cooperative land stewardship. Its purposes are to advise park management on questions relating to private land ownership and occupancy inside the 

boundaries of the national seashore, and on the management of recreational activities. Membership consists of one representative from each of the six lower cape 

towns, two representatives from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one representative from Barnstable County, and one representative of the Secretary of the 

Interior. 

Cape Cod National Seashore, located in eastern Massachusetts, was authorized by 

Public Law 87-126 in 1961, and established in 1966 with a unique pattern of land 

ownership and management. The six lower cape towns, from whose lands the Cape 

Cod National Seashore was carved, retain ownership of numerous parcels within the 

park including ponds, beaches, parking lots and roads. In addition, more than 600 

parcels inside the park are privately owned. Under a unique landowner arrangement, sometimes referred to as the ‘‘Cape Cod Formula,’’ these parcels are expected 

to remain in private hands. However, activities on these lands can have profound 

effects on protected resources within the national seashore, creating a need for constructive and creative dialogue among landowners and park managers. 

The Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission is a valuable asset that 

enhances communication between park managers and local communities and has established an excellent reputation as a facilitator of vital public/private dialogue. Frequent use of subcommittees dedicated to the exploration of specific questions allows 

local opinion leaders to remain involved. At the same time, it permits numerous 

parties to have direct access to park management through dozens of hours of consultation that park staff would be otherwise unable to support either individually 

or in public hearings. 

The commission’s state and local representatives participate actively, and they 

strongly support its continuation. The cost of administering the Commission is minimal, approximately $7,000 annually, and is covered by the park’s operating budget. 

Mr. Chairman that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 
27 

S. 3247

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3247, a bill to provide for the designation of the River 

Raisin National Battlefield Park in the State of Michigan. 

At this time, the Department recommends deferring action on S. 3247. Our recommendation does not detract from the significance and importance of this battlefield site and the historical events associated with this major engagement of the 

War of 1812. We believe that the special resource study and the national historic 

landmark nomination currently underway should be completed so a determination 

can be made if the site is nationally significant and is both suitable and feasible 

to be designated as a unit of the National Park System. 

S. 3247 directs the Secretary of the Interior to accept the donation of real property 

from willing landowners in Monroe or Wayne Counties, Michigan, relating to the 

Battles of the River Raisin and their aftermath. If sufficient acreage to permit efficient administration is donated, the Secretary shall designate the acquired land as 

a unit of the National Park System. The new unit would be known as the ‘‘River 

Raisin National Battlefield Park.’’ 

Public Law 109-429, signed by President Bush on December 20, 2006, authorized 

the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of sites relating 

to the Battles of the River Raisin on January 18 and 22, 1813 and their aftermath. 

The study would provide alternatives for the appropriate way to preserve, to protect, 

and to interpret these sites and resources. Those alternatives would include recommendations on whether the area could be included as a new unit or part of an 

existing unit of the National Park System, or if the Federal government is the most 

appropriate entity to manage the site. 

The National Park Service has begun work on the special resource study and preliminary evaluation indicates that the site would qualify as a national historic landmark. There is intact archaeological evidence of the site; and archaeologists within 

the National Park Service’s Battlefield Protection Program say that if the archaeology is preserved, the site has impressive integrity as a battlefield. 

We believe the study process should be allowed to continue in tandem with the 

national historic nomination. With public involvement, these two efforts will provide 

needed information to determine the best path for preservation and interpretation 

of the battlefield. We expect both to be completed in 2-3 years from now. 

The battles of the River Raisin were among the largest and most tragic engagements of the War of 1812. They were fought where the River Raisin enters Lake 

Erie at Frenchtown, or present day Monroe. Only 33 of the 934 American soldiers 

who fought in the battles escaped death or capture. The massacre of wounded soldiers by Indians on January 23, 1813, shocked people throughout the Northwest 

Territories. This was later known as the ‘‘Massacre of the River Raisin.’’ 

The River Raisin was left a desolate, nearly abandoned settlement for eight 

months following the massacre. It was liberated on September 27, 1813, when Colonel Richard M. Johnson’s Kentucky cavalry, led by men from the River Raisin, rode 

into the settlement. Although the British could not return, destruction was so severe 

that the River Raisin settlement remained desolate and impoverished for five years 

after the battle. 

Until recently, the site of the main battlefield was occupied by an abandoned 

paper mill and listed as a brownfield site. However, the city of Monroe has received 

$1 million in grants and loans from the Clean Michigan Initiative and the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality to remove the structures and mitigate any 

polluted soils. An archaeologist monitored the removal and cleanup activities at the 

site, which has recently been transferred to public ownership. 

That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you or 

other members of the subcommittee may have. 

S. 3226

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

appear before you to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3226, 

a bill to rename the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site in the State 

of Kentucky as the ‘‘Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park’’. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 3226, as we believe that the term ‘‘national historical park’’ is a more appropriate designation for the Abraham Lincoln 

Birthplace site than its current designation. This bill is based on an Administration 

legislative proposal that was transmitted to Congress on May 8, 2008. 

Abraham Lincoln, one of our most revered Presidents, was born February 12, 

1809, in a one-room log cabin on the Sinking Spring Farm near Hodgenville, Kentucky. This site, where the Lincoln family lived until 1811, was established as the 
28 

Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site in 1916. This 116-acre site features a memorial building that preserves an early 19th century Kentucky cabin, 

symbolic of the one in which Lincoln was born. 

In 1811, the family lost title to their Sinking Spring Farm and moved ten miles 

away to 30 leased acres in the Knob Creek Valley. It was here that young Abraham 

first attended the ‘Blab Schools,’ so named because the children recited their lessons 

aloud. It was also here that a third child was born to the family, Thomas Lincoln, 

Jr., who survived only a short time. The Lincolns lived at Knob Creek Farm until 

1816, when they moved to Indiana. Public Law 105-355, enacted in 1998, authorized 

the acquisition of Knob Creek Farm, and the 228-acre parcel of land was donated 

to the National Park Service in November 2001. This acquisition added a second 

unit to the Historic Site. 

Because the Historic Site now has two non-contiguous sites, its 2006 General 

Management Plan recommends seeking legislation to change its name to ‘‘Abraham 

Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park,’’ which would make the name consistent with other parks that have historic resources at multiple sites. 

This legislation proposes a name change only. Costs associated with the name 

would be minimal and would only involve changing the park name on signs, letterhead, and brochures. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or members of the committee may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Wenk. 

Mr. Holtrop. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HOLTROP. Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, thank you for the 

opportunity to present to the subcommittee the perspective of the 

Department of Agriculture on S. 3148, the Oregon Caves National 

Monument Boundary Modification. This bill would do three things. 

Transfer approximately 4,070 acres of land from the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest to the Oregon Caves National 

Monument. 

Designate six segments of river as part of the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. 

Provide for the termination of grazing use on a Forest Service 

managed grazing allotment adjacent to the monument. 

The intent of these actions is to enhance protection of resources 

associated with the Oregon Caves National Monument and to increase public recreation opportunities in and around the monument. We applaud these intentions and share these goals. However 

we believe that this bill would not accomplish these goals. 

A similar expansion proposal has been a part of the Oregon 

Caves National Monument General Management Plan since 1998. 

Since that time, the Forest Service and Department of Interior 

have not been jointly considering land status changes. The long 

standing policy of USDA and DOI is to avoid unilateral proposals 

that would change the status of lands. 

Instead the approach has been to conduct a joint study fully open 

to public participation. Moreover, long standing direction from both 

Departments has been for mutual support and cooperation in management of lands under each jurisdiction. I want to assure you the 

Forest Service is fully committed to cooperative and mutually supportive management. 

Now I’d like to talk briefly about a commitment to cooperation 

in resource protection on these lands. The land managers of the 

Rouge River-Siskiyou National Forest currently work very closely 
29 

with managers of the Oregon Caves National Monument on resource issues that cross boundaries. A primary goal of both the Forest and the Monument is to maintain and protect cave resources, 

hydrologic resources, watersheds and view sheds. 

Critical landscapes are currently managed by interagency cooperation. These resources not only extend beyond the current 

monument boundary, but also extent well beyond the proposed expansion area. A great example of working to enhance resource protection across boundaries is the Rogue River-Siskiyou’s commitment to improving forest health by addressing hazardous fuels. 

The majority of the proposed expansion area is designated as late 

successional reserve, LSR for short, as defined under the Northwest Forest Plan. The LSR managed by the Forest Service within 

the expansion area is in fire condition Class Three, high risk of 

damaging, perhaps catastrophic wildfire. This danger is very real. 

This same ranger district experienced a very large fire in 2002, the 

Biscuit Fire, that burned more than a half million acres. 

Currently the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is using 

commercial harvesting in a coordinated multi-year effort to reduce 

fuels around the monument boundary and across the larger watershed and surrounding landscape. Some of the revenue from commercial treatments will be used to reduce the cost of fuel treatments on acres that can’t be conducted commercially. Some of this 

revenue will be returned to the State of Oregon to support local 

schools and road maintenance. 

The Forest Service is fully committed to providing a wide range 

of public outdoor recreational opportunities on this landscape. Visitors to National Forest lands in the area enjoy horseback riding, 

camping, backpacking and hiking as well as hunting and fishing. 

The Forest Service does and will work with the National Park 

Service and the local community to make the most of the recreational opportunities on and around the monument. 

However if the bill is enacted as written, hunting will be prohibited from the proposed expansion area. The legislation directs the 

Secretary of Agriculture to accept any donation of a grazing permit 

by the permit holder for the Forest Service grazing allotment. If 

this donation is receiving, grazing would end on the entire allotment. 

Regardless of what happens to this particular allotment. The 

Forest Service believes that grazing is an environmentally compatible use within this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest. We also believe that livestock grazing on public range lands 

continues to be an important and appropriate use of these lands. 

Ranching contributes to the economic vitality of rural communities. It’s tightly bound to the cultural identity of the West and 

provides for open space values on the private lands associated with 

public grazing. Wherever possible, we at the Forest Service want 

to ensure policies help to keep working ranches in operation and 

the land whole in the best tradition of conservation. 

In closing we believe that commitment on the part of the Forest 

Service and National Park Service to actively cooperate in management is the best and most effective means to enhance resource protection and recreational opportunities across this landscape. To 

that end, we request the committee defer action on this proposal 
30 

pending further coordination. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, 

FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ON S. 3148 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on S.3148 the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Modification. The intent of the legislation is to enhance protection 

of resources associated with the Monument and to increase public recreation opportunities. To achieve these goals the bill would transfer approximately 4,070 acres 

of land from the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest to the Oregon Caves National Monument; it would designate six segments of rivers within the boundaries 

of the proposed transfer as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system; and 

it would provide for possible termination of grazing use on a Forest Service-managed grazing allotment, a portion of which is located within the proposed boundary 

of the Monument. 

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not believe that either of the bill’s 

primary purposes, enhanced protection of resources or increased public recreation 

opportunities, would be effectively achieved by its enactment. We believe that interagency coordination is the best and most effective means not only to enhance resource protection and recreational opportunities but also, and perhaps more importantly in the long run, to increase the participation of local communities, governments, and interest groups in Federal land and resource planning activities. To that 

end, we request that the committee defer action on this proposal pending further 

coordination between the Forest Service and the National Park Service. 

By way of background, the Oregon Caves National Monument is comprised of an 

area of approximately 480 acres located in the Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon. S. 3148 would expand the Monument boundary, through a land transfer to 

the Secretary of the Interior, to include approximately 4, 070 acres of land that are 

currently in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

In order to better illustrate the Department’s position, I would like to take this 

opportunity to discuss in greater detail a number of the bill’s specific proposals as 

well as the current status of cooperative and mutually supportive management between the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and the Oregon Caves National 

Monument. 

Expansion Proposal 

Section 4 of the bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer the proposed expansion area to the Secretary of the Interior, and to adjust the boundary 

of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest to exclude the transferred land. The 

1998 Oregon Caves National Monument General Management Plan, developed 

through the public NEPA process, recommended a similar boundary expansion. No 

coordinated study or formal dialogue between the Departments (beyond that provided under NEPA during development of the 1998 plan) has taken place in the intervening period. 

The longstanding policy of USDA and DOI is to avoid unilateral proposals to 

change the status of lands. Instead if land change status is to be considered, the 

Departments’ approach has been to conduct joint study, fully open to public participation. Moreover, longstanding direction has been for mutual support and cooperation in management of lands under each jurisdiction. The U.S. Forest Service is 

fully committed to cooperative and mutually supportive management across our respective jurisdictions. 

Protection of Resources 

The land managers of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and the Oregon 

Caves National Monument currently work very closely together on areas of mutual 

interest. The Forest Service and National Park Service managers mutually support 

the following three specific goals: 

1. Maintaining and protecting cave resources, hydrologic resources, watersheds, and view sheds. Critical landscapes, including cave resources and watersheds, are managed by interagency collaboration. These resources, and the need 

to manage them in a cooperative manner, not only extend beyond the current 

Monument boundary but also extend well beyond the proposed expansion area. 

Mere expansion of the Monument boundary would do little to further enhance 

resource protection of these landscapes and resources. 
31 

1 16 U.S.C. 500 directs 25% of receipts from a National Forest to be returned to the state 

where the National Forest is located; the state then distributes to the county where the National 

Forest is situated for public schools and roads as the state may prescribe. 

2. Improving forest health by addressing hazardous fuels. The majority of the 

proposed expansion area is designated as ‘‘Late-Successional Reserve’’ (LSR) as 

defined under the Northwest Forest Plan. These areas are intended to serve as 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species. A majority of the 

LSR landscape within this watershed, and the larger surrounding landscape 

managed by the Forest Service, is in fire condition class 3—high risk of damaging, perhaps catastrophic, wildfire. Currently the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is using commercial harvest in a coordinated, multi-year effort to 

reduce fuels, both around the immediate vicinity of the Monument and across 

the larger watershed and landscape. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

plans for approximately 1550 acres of fuels treatment projects within the proposed expansion area. Four hundred and forty acres will be treated over the 

next several years. Of those acres, approximately 100 acres will be treated by 

commercial harvest with volume estimated at 560 thousand board feet and an 

appraised value of approximately $168,000. The remainder will be treated noncommercially. These treatments are designed and implemented to help restore 

the historic role of fire in this ecosystem and will help ensure that the forest 

attributes intended for the LSR, including bigger, older, more fire resistant 

trees, remain intact. To that end, we fully endorse the intent of section 6 of the 

proposed legislation to have forest restoration activities continue on the proposed expansion area. The hazardous fuel challenge in this region -and the danger of catastrophic fire-crosses all jurisdictions and is one we all must work together to address. 

3. Minimizing any potential impacts from harvest, grazing, mining, and road 

construction. The Forest Service is fully committed to its multiple-use mission 

on National Forest System lands. Sustainable timber harvesting, grazing, and 

special forest products harvesting, as well as providing for a diversity of recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, help support the local economy. Returned receipts to states from commercial activities on National Forest 

lands play an important role supporting local public infrastructure, including 

schools and roads.1

On the National Forest lands that surround the Monument, timber harvesting, 

grazing and special forest product harvesting (i.e. bear grass, firewood, mushrooms, 

etc.) are allowed only if they meet resource objectives, as described above. Road 

management is limited to maintenance and reconstruction activities; no new roads 

are planned to be built within the area. Moreover, interagency collaboration provides additional oversight of these types of multiple-use activities. 

Expanding and improving tourism and recreational opportunities 

Current recreation on the portion of the National Forest proposed to be transferred includes horseback riding, hunting and fishing, gathering, camping, backpacking, and hiking. Interagency coordination maintains access to a full range of 

recreational opportunities which enhances the experience of both Monument and 

National Forest visitors. Executive Order 13443, issued in August 2007, directs the 

managers of national parks, forests, and other public lands, consistent with agency 

missions, to ‘‘facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and 

the management of game species and their habitat.’’ If the bill is enacted, we understand from the National Park Service that hunting would be prohibited from the 

4070 acre proposed expansion area. The Forest Service is fully committed to working with the National Park Service and the local community to provide for and to 

enhance a full spectrum of public outdoor recreational opportunities. 

Relinquishment and Retirement of Grazing Permits 

Section 7 of the proposed legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to 

accept any ‘‘donation’’ of a grazing permit by the permit holder for grazing on the 

Forest Service managed Big Grayback grazing allotment, and if such a donation is 

received, ensure an end to grazing on the entire allotment. Under this legislation, 

only a small portion of the Big Grayback allotment would become part of the Monument, and it is not clear how permanently ending grazing on a large area of land 

outside the Monument will further the legislation’s purposes of enhancing resource 

protection and recreation opportunities on the Monument. 

The Forest Service believes that grazing is an environmentally compatible use 

within this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Livestock grazing 

on public rangelands has been and continues to be an important and appropriate 
32 

use of our public lands and is important to the economic vitality and cultural identity of many communities. We recognize that most ranchers are good stewards of 

the land, and that they are essential contributors to retaining rangelands as open 

space and working lands across the Nation. The United States is losing important 

working rangelands to development all across the Nation. The loss of open space results in fragmentation of the rangelands into smaller, more isolated patches. The 

loss of open space affects our air, water, and vegetation, and degrades wildlife habitat; increasingly these former rangelands are developed into part of the wildland/ 

urban interface. Development of open space is driven by a multitude of social and 

economic factors, some of which are beyond the mission or ability of the Forest Service to address. However, for our part, we want to ensure that Forest Service policies 

help to keep working ranches in operation and the land whole, in the best tradition 

of conservation. 

The permit holder’s family has historically held permits on this allotment since 

1937. The current permit was issued 2002 and will expire in 2012. A revised management plan for the allotment was issued in February, 2008 following an Environmental Assessment that was completed in October, 2007. The revised plan has not 

yet been issued, pending an appeal resolution under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). 

Absent a voluntary waiver of the permit by the permit holder, the Forest Service 

generally only retires grazing permits through the public land use planning processes. The current permit holder may waive the permit at any time. If the permittee 

waives the permit back, the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest currently has the 

discretion to utilize the land within the parameters of the Forest’s Land Management Plan. Options for use of the land include issuing the permit to a new holder 

if the base acres requirement is met, holding the allotment vacant, or retiring the 

allotment. We note that if the legislation is enacted and the permit is not waived, 

the permit on the National Forest portion of the allotment, beyond the proposed expansion area, would continue as a valid use. Further, the Forest Service would not 

be responsible for enforcement of livestock exclusion, including fence construction 

and range improvements, on the portion of the allotment in the proposed expansion 

area, since that land would be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior. 

We have other concerns with section 7. For example, section 7 does not indicate 

how the allotment would be managed should the permittee opt not to relinquish the 

permit, or in what order the transfer of the land and the waiver of the permit would 

occur. In addition, while section 7(a) would require a permanent end to grazing on 

the allotment if the permit is ‘‘donated,’’ section 7(b) indicates that a portion of a 

grazing permit could be donated. We also have concerns with some of the terminology in section 7. For instance, one example is the use of the term ‘‘donation’’, a 

concept that is not applicable to Forest Service grazing permits. The Forest Service 

uses the term ‘‘waiver’’ to describe a permittee’s voluntary relinquishment of a grazing permit. 

Consequently, the Forest Service opposes this provision. However, the Forest 

Service also recognizes the value of working cooperatively and collaboratively with 

local stakeholders to fulfill its multiple use mission on Forest Service lands. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Section 5 of the proposed legislation provides for the addition of six river segments to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). The Siskiyou National Forest analyzed all tributaries to the Illinois River on National Forest System 

lands for eligibility for inclusion in the NWSRS as part of a 1989 settlement agreement to an appeal of the Land and Resource Management Plan. None of the four 

rivers included partly or entirely in the current Monument expansion proposal were 

found to meet the criteria for eligibility at that time. The Forest Service would suggest that, at minimum, the segments within the proposed expansion area be re-evaluated for their eligibility for the NWSRS. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this legislation. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Holtrop. 

I would like to begin with a question for Mr. Wenk regarding S. 

3247, the River Raisin National Battlefield bill. I understand that 

the Park Service believes that the site and its history are significant. However, and you did state in your testimony, you would like 

the opportunity to complete the suitability study to determine the 

best way to preserve and interpret the battle and battlefield and 
33 

you did mention in your testimony that you think it will take about 

two to 3 years to complete the study. 

My only question is, ‘‘Why is it going to take that long?’’ 

Mr. WENK. Mr. Chairman, the typical study for a new area study 

or special resource study of the National Park Service typically 

takes 2 to 3 years and costs approximately $300,000 to do that. We 

did launch the study in April of this year. The first public meetings 

are scheduled for October of this year. 

There is reason to believe based on preliminary work that’s been 

done at the National Historic Landmark Study with the city of 

Monroe, that it is nationally significant or has national significance. The question of suitability and feasibility can only be answered by going through the complete study. That’s just, sir, the 

time that it takes to get a study done. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for the explanation. I would like to 

ask you a question regarding S. 3113, a bill regarding off-road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. If this bill is enacted into a law and the court decree is overturned what do you 

see as the most significant, on the ground impact? 

Mr. WENK. I think there’s two ways to look at the impact, sir. 

One of the ways is to look at the effects on the natural resources, 

the endangered species. We know that under the consent decree 

that we had an increase in the number of nesting pairs of endangered species, the piping plover and of the fledglings from those 

nestings there. 

We know we’ve had an increase in other species that are protected either by the Federal Government or under state government. We also know that there’s been an increase in the amount 

of nests of the turtles. So one side is that we, if we were not to continue with the consent decree, we may see, some of those gains not 

being able to be sustained. 

On the other hand if it was rolled back there would be more 

beach space or beach access that would be available. The setbacks 

that are required under the consent decree are greater in distance 

from nesting pairs from fledglings than they would be under the 

consent decree. So there is a difference in the amount of beach access at particular times of year. 

I might say that currently 3 of the 6 fishing areas are at least 

partially open. We expect that all six will be open in September, 

and that the consent decree will not affect the fall and winter fishing seasons at Cape Hatteras. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Wenk, I would like to ask you 

about S. 3148, Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Expansion. I understand that it is the Administration’s position generally, to oppose the transfer of lands from the Forest Service to 

the National Park Service. However, can you tell me from the Park 

Service’s perspective whether or not the land issued here would be 

suitable for addition to the monument? 

Mr. WENK. Mr. Chairman, in 1998 and 1999 there was a general 

management plan done with considerable public involvement and 

what that general management plan looked at was how the ecology 

of the cave and their environments, including the Lake Creek and 

Cave Creek watersheds, could be offered additional protections. In 

addition to the monument’s water supply, protection of the source 
34 

of that supply which is on these proposed additions, would offer additional protection to the viewsheds from the monument’s developed areas and the monument’s trails would be further enhanced. 

So, we believe there are further protections that are included 

within there. Therefore they are suitable. 

Senator AKAKA. Let me now ask for questions from my colleague, 

Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also ask unanimous consent to send additional questions to our witnesses because I will focus on Hatteras, but I do have questions on other 

things. 

Senator AKAKA. No objection. They will be included. 

Senator BURR. Dan and Joel, thank you for being here. Dan, I’m 

going to focus on you and let Joel off the hook. As it relates to the 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, during the time in which the Interim Management Plan was followed, did the National Park Service comply with the terms of the formal biological opinion? 

Mr. WENK. We did comply with the reasonable and prudent 

measures that were within the terms of the conditions of that original 2006 biological opinion. However, we did fail to meet some of 

the performance measures that were contained in there. Therefore, 

we had to re-engage in negotiations with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service on those terms and measures. 

Senator BURR. During the court approved agreement time that 

it’s been in place, which is just under 3 months if I remember. Has 

there been any increase in beach traffic anywhere else because of 

the limitations that have been put on Hatteras? 

Mr. WENK. Are you saying any other place within the National 

Park System or within different segments of the beach? I want to 

make sure I’m answering your question. 

Senator BURR. Given that there have been limitations placed 

that didn’t exist before on beach traffic, it would be all from the 

seashore area. 

Mr. WENK. I’m not aware that there’s any increased traffic off of 

the beach area. I do know that on 1 day over the Memorial Day 

weekend, we had a situation with beach traffic in terms of concentration of the ORV traffic that we had to actually sort of, if you 

will, allow beach traffic, monitor or control the traffic through an 

area because of the size of the open space. But that only happened 

on 1 day. 

I can tell you, sir that the amount of area closed in general, has 

been very close to the same under the Interim strategy or under 

the consent decree. The issue obviously serves where it’s closed in 

terms of the total miles on the beach. 

Senator BURR. So for 2008 has the visitation of the Hatteras National Seashore—is it up or is it down? 

Mr. WENK. It’s down about 15 percent. 

Senator BURR. What’s the average for the Park Service in total? 

Mr. WENK. In total, I don’t know. I did look at some numbers in 

preparation for this. 

Senator BURR. It’s down 1.2 percent. I’ll save you looking it up. 

Mr. WENK. I do know Cape Lookout is down 18 percent. I know 

that Cape Cod is 2 percent. Regarding seashores, Padre Island is 
35 

down. As are other islands, Assateague, Cumberland and Fire Island. 

Senator BURR. Do the others fall within the framework of what 

the Park Service totally is down. But my question gets to the heart 

of the fact that there’s something that’s unpredictable about outer 

seashore. It’s not just affected the visitation of Hatteras. 

It’s affected the visitation of Lookout and of other areas. Senator 

Dole put this incredibly well that part of the balance we have to 

look at from a standpoint of our side is what’s the economic impact. 

Could this decision be economically devastating to those in the 

area? A 14.5 percent reduction in visitation, a larger loss of economic business at Lookout, down the Island is a significant impact 

when you’re talking about the period that truly is the money making time of this area of North Carolina. 

You gave a statistic. I don’t question the statistic. That’s the 

number of fledglings off the nest. I interpreted you to insinuate 

that this was the direct result of this new strategy, of this rule in 

place. 

Now this rule has been in place for 3 months. Can you honestly 

make that assessment based on a 3-month period? 

Mr. WENK. Sir, the only thing I can tell you is that the difference 

between 2007 and 2008. I cannot tell you if that’s a trend that can 

be sustained or will be sustained. I just can tell you in terms of 

the observation. This was what was observed in 2007. This is 

what’s observed in 2008. 

Senator BURR. By the same? 

Mr. WENK. It’s a fact. 

Senator BURR. By the same token you can’t tell me if the double 

digit decline in visitation is an aberration or it’s just a continuation. 

Mr. WENK. That is correct. 

Senator BURR. Ok. I thank you. Thank the chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. Now I’d 

like to call on Senator Craig for any comments or questions he may 

have. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think in 

light of what Senator Burr’s concerns are, gentlemen, I’m always 

frustrated when we see the restriction of OHV use on land intended for recreational use. We try to designate for purposes of resource value and resource balance. 

At the same time we certainly designate properties that are for 

certain types of use. Then to step in and start restricting that use 

additionally, to me, denies Americans a right to enjoy their natural 

heritage in many ways. Certainly OHVs allow for a greater number 

of our people to enjoy our Nation and what it has to offer. 

The economic consequences of these kinds of activities are real. 

We all know there are types of resources that properly managed 

can utilize those. There are others properly managed shouldn’t 

have them on it. 

I think I understand that. I would hope that that would be true 

in the situation that Senator Burr is speaking to. In that sense I 

think S. 3113 which is the legislation you’re dealing with, Richard, 

as it relates to the interim plan for National Parks and in this case 

beach use. 
36 

Also, Mr. Chairman, there’s another piece of legislation S. 3148 

that deals with boundaries on the Oregon Caves National Monument to include about 4,000 acres of forested lands. This would increase the size of that monument by ten fold from its current 480 

acres. In these areas, I know that my colleagues from Oregon have 

some frustration about it. 

But grazing plays a typical role in ranching. Ranchers cannot afford, I think, to compete with environmental organizations that 

have large accounts for funding their purposes. I found that time 

and time again where we, in creating public policy really have to 

become the reasonable moderator. That’s something that I think is 

tremendously important. 

In the West that I represent environment values are awfully important along with grazing, all kinds of recreational activities. I’m 

always cautious when I see overly restrictive designations in areas 

that probably, I would find or most would find it hard to justify, 

when in fact the resource itself has been designated or the one that 

we’re focused on designating. 

Also, one of the things that I think we’re finding increasingly important out West as it relates to access and all of that is in a balance so that we can get in to fight fires and deal with the increased 

intensity of these fires in a way that allows our management the 

flexibility of doing that. 

Anyway those are some of my frustrations I think on these two 

pieces of legislation that are before the committee today along with 

several others. I’ll approach those with due caution. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. I want to 

thank our two witnesses on this panel very much for being here 

today. We will keep the record open for any further statements or 

questions that we may have, that we’ll submit to you. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAIG. I would also ask unanimous consent that my full 

statement be included in the record. 

Senator AKAKA. Without objection it will be included in the 

record, Senator Craig. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

Restricting OHV use on land intended for recreation use is restricting the right 

that every American has to enjoy our natural heritage. OHV’s allow for a greater 

number of people to enjoy what our nation has to offer. 

We must also consider the economic consequences-when the major attraction of 

a small town is a beach, it doesn’t help to shut it down. 

While I understand the importance of keeping America’s public lands peaceful and 

pristine. 

I don’t think that OHV use would detract from this, in fact, it could increase visitation as it diversifies the activities one can partake in at various sites. 

It seems to me that were the residents of an area given the option of protecting 

a threatened species and recreating vs. protecting a species or recreating, they 

would go with the first option. 

Opinions are divided over the importance of the some oceanic creature’s habitat 

and recreation on the beaches. 

In some cases, the voices of the locals are being suppressed in favor of the more 

outspoken, though not necessarily correct, and structured organizations with more 

resources at their disposal. 

Many times these organizations are regionally or nationally based entities that do 

not have a stake in the local community. 
37 

It is not only the locals who enjoy recreating on the federal lands. Visitors from 

all over the United States face disappointment as more and more of their land is 

designated as critical habitat. 

How can we determine at this point whether or not a plan that has been implemented for less than a year (from June 13, 2007-April 2008) has resulted in success? 

Environmentalists claim that the decline in shorebird population is due to the 

OHV usage which is unsubstantiated due to the lack of information. 

The ‘‘decline’’ could be a result of a variety of factors. To consider the results inconclusive after one season is inappropriate. 

STATEMENT ON S. 3148

Grazing plays a pivotal role in ranching. Ranchers cannot afford to compete with 

environmental organizations that have large amounts of funding at their disposal. 

It’s important to ensure that buyouts are fair and not placing the ranchers at a disadvantage. 

Ranchers should not be forced to give up private land needed for grazing in order 

to expand federal land holdings. 

Another concern has been over thinning and restoration in the forests around Oregon Caves, which would be transferred from the Forest Service to the Park Service. 

Should the forest be neglected, Oregon and neighboring states could face an increase of intense wildfires as a result. 

The transfer of power is also a cause for concern. Undoubtedly the Forest Service 

has a different focus than the Park Service, which could lead to more a focus on 

the Oregon Caves while the forests become dilapidated. 

A third concern has been over hunting on Park Service lands, which are generally 

off limits to hunting.μ Expanding the boundary will push hunters back, and they 

are generally opposed to locking up more land. 

Hunting has the potential to fuel tourism. Restricting hunting rights even further 

is unfair to residents who rely on the patronage hunters can bring. 

Considering the land was originally managed by the Forest Service, hunters have 

a reasonable expectation to not have their lands curtailed by a related agency. 

Senator AKAKA. I would like to call up the second panel. 

The Honorable Warren Judge, Chairman of the Dare County 

Board of Commissioners; Derb Carter, Director of the Carolina Office for the Southern Environmental Law Center; Coline Jenkins, 

President of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust; and, William 

Braunlich, President of the Monroe County Historical Society. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today to testify before 

the committee. I want to tell you that we appreciate your coming. 

Some of you have traveled from out of town. We appreciate your 

time and effort. 

Your testimonies will certainly help the committee. I just want 

you to know that following your testimony you will be subject to 

questions, and also to ask you to please limit your remarks to no 

more than 5 minutes. Your complete statements will be included in 

the record along with any other materials you may submit. 

Commissioner Judge, will you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF WARREN JUDGE, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, DARE COUNTY, NC 

Mr. JUDGE. Good afternoon and thank you, Senator Akaka, Senator Burr and Senator Craig. I’m Warren Judge, Chairman of the 

Dare County Board of Commissioners. On behalf of the 33,000 people who call Dare County their home and six million people who 

visit Dare County and the Outer Banks every year, it is my honor 

to appear before you to seek your support for S. 3113 to return the 

management of the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area to 

the Park Superintendent. 

I’ve attached supporting materials by outside counsel Holland 

and Knight. 
38 

The National Park Service created the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore in 1937. In 1952, in an effort to alleviate the concerns of 

the people of Hatteras Island after taking miles of privately owned 

lands, Conrad Wirth, the Director of the Park Service sent an open 

letter to the people of the Outer Banks assuring them that there 

will always be access to the beach for all people whether they are 

local residents or visitors. His letter went on to acknowledge that 

the people who had lived in the area for generations would be responsible for caring for the tourists that would arrive to the newly 

created seashore and that these communities would enjoy the prosperity created by the Park. 

Until April of this year, Director Wirth’s vision for the Park has 

been carried out. For decades the National Park Service has balanced the rights of all Americans to access the seashore with the 

need to protect the Park’s resources. In April of this year, special 

interest environmental groups put an end to the National Park 

Service’s successful and accepted management principles. 

As a result of a lawsuit and under the threat of an injunction 

closing even larger portions of the seashore, a consent order was 

issued by U.S. Federal District Court Judge, resulting in the closure of significant portions of the seashore to human access including the most popular swimming areas in the seashore and the traditional and world renown fishing areas. Special interest groups 

were relentless in their pressure on the park and the management 

in their effort to close the seashore. These special interest groups 

have no practical sense and advocate the removal of people from 

the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area. 

Contrary to Director Wirth’s acknowledgement that and I quote, 

‘‘Man is an integral part of nature and a very important consideration of designing solutions in dealing with nature.’’ Senators, this 

an issue of access for all people to their favorite place in the recreational area, the backside beaches and tidal pools at Oregon Inlet 

or for Moms and Dads a great place to take their young children 

to experience the oceanside out of the wave zone. Cape Point is 

world renown for fishing. There is no better place in the world to 

drum fish. 

Cape Point is where the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current 

collide. This phenomenon brings surfers from all over the world. If 

you surf Hawaii and if surf Australia, you will surf Cape Point. 

This is an issue of how heritage and our culture. It is about our 

people. Generations of Hatterasmen who are descendants of shipwreck victims. It is about the Migdett’s, Burrus’, Couch’s, Dillon’s, 

all who for generations have owned and operated family businesses 

on Hatteras Island. 

There are hundreds of stories that I could share with you today 

about people whose businesses, as a result of this court order, have 

declined in some cases by as much as 50 percent since April, even 

as we are on the prime part of our season. Senators, there are no 

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

are hundreds of small business men and women. 

We go to work everyday to provide for ourselves and to serve as 

hosts to millions of vacationers as they come to Dare County and 

the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area. Many of them eke 

out a living and are content to do that for the opportunity to live 
39 

and to enjoy the outdoors that Hatteras Island provides. Government should not take that away. Government should do all that it 

can to preserve this way of life. 

These same men and women that I have spoken about are the 

very ones who care for the environment and the beauty of the Cape 

Hatteras National Recreational Area. You will find them cleaning 

the beaches or guiding and protecting turtle hatchings. They’ll 

cherish the Park’s natural resources. 

These are the same resources that attracted them to Dare County and attract the visitors upon whom all of our livelihoods depend. 

They, too want to protect these resources, but do not believe it 

should be done without thought of human impact. The Interim 

Management Plan that was adopted in 2007 worked. The birds and 

turtles were protected and the people had access to the recreational 

area. 

The people of Hatteras Island understood and accepted the plan. 

It was developed by the National Park Service in conjunction with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It gave Park Managers the ability to manage. 

That ended when those unwilling to balance interests, who are 

single minded in their pursuits filed legal action to obtain their 

goals without thought to the impact on small communities and to 

the working people who live in those communities. It should now 

be restored while we work together to come up with a permanent 

plan that accomplishes these goals. The people of Hatteras Island 

and Dare County are counting on you to help them to keep the 

promises made by those before you. 

Please help us preserve our culture, our history, our way of life. 

Please support S. 3113. Thank you for this opportunity to appear 

before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Judge follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WARREN JUDGE, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

DARE COUNTY, NC 

Thank you Senator Akaka (Mr. Chairman), I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here today. It is an honor and a privilege to represent the 33,000 people who call 

Dare County, North Carolina their home and the 6 million people who visit Dare 

County and the Outer Banks every year. 

I am here today on behalf of those people to ask for your support of S3113 to return the management of the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area to the Park 

Superintendent. I have attached supporting material by outside counsel, Holland 

and Knight. 

The National Park Service created the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 1937. 

In 1952, in an effort to alleviate the concerns of the people of Hatteras Island after 

taking miles of privately owned lands, Conrad Wirth, the Director of the Park Service, sent an open letter to the people of the Outer Banks assuring them that ‘‘there 

will always be access to the beach for all people, whether they are local residents 

or visitors.’’ His letter went on to acknowledge that the people who had lived in the 

area for generations would be responsible for caring for the tourists that would arrive to the newly created Seashore and that these communities would enjoy the 

prosperity created by the Park. Until April of this year, Director Wirth’s vision for 

the Park has been carried out. For decades the National Park Service has balanced 

the rights of all Americans to access the Seashore with the need to protect the 

Park’s resources. 

In April of this year, environmental groups put an end to the National Park Service’s successful and accepted management practices. As a result of a lawsuit and 

under the threat of an injunction closing even larger portions of the Seashore, a consent order was issued by a U.S. Federal District Court judge resulting in the closure 

of significant portions of the Seashore to human access, including the most popular 
40 

swimming areas in the Seashore and the traditional and world renowned fishing 

areas. Special interests groups, in particular National Audubon and the Defenders 

of Wildlife, were relentless in their pressure on the Park and the management in 

their efforts to close the Seashore. These special interest groups have no practical 

sense and advocate the removal of people from the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area contrary to Director Wirth’s acknowledgment that ‘‘man is an integral part of nature and a very important consideration of designing solutions in 

dealing with nature’’. 

Senators, this is an issue of access for all people to their favorite place in the Recreational Area. Have you ever been to Oregon Inlet? It is a first class location to 

surf fish, and has some of the best family swimming beaches you will ever find. The 

back side beaches and tidal pools offer moms and dads a great place to take their 

small children to experience the ocean outside of the wave zone. Cape Point is world 

renowned for fishermen; there is no better place in the word to drum fish. Cape 

Point is where the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current collide. This phenomenon 

brings Surfers from all over the world. If you surf Hawaii and Australia, you will 

surf Cape Point. South Beach, too, is a world class beach and known the world over. 

You do not visit Hatteras Island without spending a day on South Beach. 

This is an issue of our heritage and our culture. It is about our people; generations of Hatterassmen who are descendents of shipwrecked victims. It is about two 

brothers, Stocky and Anderson Midgett, who operated a bus from Oregon Inlet to 

Hatteras Inlet delivering supplies and people up and down the Island—the Beach 

was the highway. This is about John Couch, a second generation family business 

owner, who has provided services for visitors. It is about Allen Burrus a five generation family business owner. Allen’s family has owned and operated a Grocery Store 

in the same location since 1866. Allen’s grandfathers watched as the Federal Government took their land for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, 

and promised them that they would always be able to hunt, fish, and have access 

to the ocean. It is about Carol Garris, a wife and mother who with her husband 

had the American Dream, to own their own business. They worked hard and were 

successful. When the Consent Degree closed many miles of beach, their business 

was devastated. Not only is their business in jeopardy, but they are facing personal 

financial ruin. This is about Carol Dillon, a 79 year old woman, a native of Buxton, 

who has operated the Outer Banks Motel just north of Cape Point for 50 years. 

Carol was at the Public Meeting in the early 1950’s when Director Conrad Wirth 

promised the people of Hatteras Island and Dare County that taking their land and 

making it a National Recreational Area was in their best interests. The land would 

be preserved forever for all to enjoy. 

There are hundreds more of these faces that I can share with you today. These 

are the people whose businesses, as a result of a Court’s order, have declined by 

as much as 50% since April, even as we are in the prime part of our season. Senators, there are no factories in Dare County; there are no Corporate Headquarters. 

However, we are as American as you can be. We are hundreds of small businessmen 

and women; from charter boat captains to commercial fisherman, from fishing tackle 

stores to gift shops; from motels and cottages to rental homes; from variety stores 

to eco sports outlets. We go to work everyday to provide for ourselves and to serve 

as hosts to millions of excited vacationing visitors as they come to Dare County and 

the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area for the times of their lives. Many eke 

out a living and are content to do that for the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors that 

Hatteras Island provides. Government should not take that away. Government 

should do all that it can to preserve this way of life. 

These same men and women that I have spoken about are the very ones who care 

for the environment and beauty of the Cape Hatteras National Recreation Area. You 

will find them cleaning the beaches as they organize beach sweeps to remove litter 

and trash that is harmful to birds; sitting up all night waiting for a nest of turtle 

eggs to hatch and then guide them safely to the ocean protecting them from their 

natural predators on land. These same people have more knowledge of all the birds 

and nests on Cape Hatteras than any special interest group spokesman that will 

come before you. The Interim Management plan that was adopted in 2007 worked, 

the birds and turtles were protected and the people had access to the Recreational 

Area. The people of Hatteras Island understood and accepted the plan. It gave Park 

Managers the ability to manage. That ended when those, who are unwilling to balance interests, who are single minded in their pursuits, filed legal action to obtain 

their goals without thought to the impact to small communities and to the working 

people who live in those communities. 

In a minute, you will hear from the attorney who represented those environmental groups in their efforts to close the seashore’s beaches. He will no doubt tell 

you about his interpretation of the law, and about the correctness of his client’s ac-
41 

tions, about the failures of the National Park Service, and even provide you with 

statistics that he says support his view. Though other lawyers and biologists disagree with his opinions and statistics, he will not tell you that, nor will he tell you 

about the impact of his and his client’s actions on the people of my community. 

While he may not care about the people of Hatteras Island and Dare County, these 

same people do care about the resources he says he is trying to protect. These are 

the same resources that attracted them to Dare County and attract the visitors 

upon whom all of our livelihoods depend. We too want to protect these resources, 

but do not believe it should be done without thought of the human impact. The Interim Management Plan provided the balance that we seek. It was developed by the 

National Park Service in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It protected the resources of the Park and the interests of the community. It gave the National Park Service the flexibility to continue doing that. It should be restored while 

we all work together to come up with a permanent plan that accomplishes these 

same goals. 

The people of Hatteras Island and Dare County are counting on you to help them, 

to keep the promises made by those before you. Please help us preserve our culture, 

our history, our way of life. Please support S3113. 

[Resolution, background paper, and attachment 1 have been retained in subcommittee files.] 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Honorable Judge. Now we 

will hear from Derb Carter. Will you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF DERB S. CARTER, JR., ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, CHAPEL HILL, NC 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, I’m Derb Carter with 

the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina. Thank you for the invitation today to present our views 

on S. 3113. We represented the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife in the lawsuit that led to the consent decree 

that’s now the subject of this legislation. 

For the reasons that I will summarize, that are discussed in 

more fully in our written testimony, we ask the subcommittee to 

oppose S. 3113. 

The consent decree requires the Park Service to implement specific management measures on Cape Hatteras National Seashore to 

protect wildlife until a final ORV management plan and special 

regulation is put in place. The consent decree was a product of negotiations between all parties to the lawsuit, Dare County, Hyde 

County, the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, the Coalition of ORV groups, the National Park Service and of course my 

clients, Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society. 

All parties signed a consent decree and recommended to the court 

that it be entered, which the court did. 

The Senate should honor this agreement and settlement negotiated in good faith by the parties to the lawsuit and approved by 

the court. As our beaches and shorelines have been developed, sea 

turtles and several species of water birds and shore birds have little place left to breed and nest except areas we have set aside for 

them, such as Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Congress has 

wisely chosen to preserve national seashores as a part of our National Park System to leave them unimpaired for future generations to enjoy. 

The management measures to protect wildlife on the seashore required by the consent decree are the moderate protection recommendations of Department of Interior scientists that were requested by the National Park Service. We believe this peer reviewed scientific recommendations are the best scientific informa-
42 

tion available on protection of these nesting birds and sea turtles. 

The preliminary results from implementation of these management 

measures under the consent decree are very encouraging as previously discussed by the Park Service. 

The season is not yet over, and 99 sea turtles have pulled up on 

the beaches at night to nest. Only 82 nested on the seashore during 

the entire year last year. 

Federally threatened piping plover breeding pairs and fledged 

chicks nearly doubled. Colonial waterbird numbers are up. One 

species black skimmer, which disappeared from the seashore last 

year returned to nest this year. In short, the management numbers 

required by the consent decree are working to protect and restore 

the wildlife on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 

While the temporary closures of areas for breeding birds have restricted access to some parts of the seashore beach. The vast majority has remained open to beach goers. Much has remained open to 

ORV users. 

I was on Cape Hatteras point on Saturday. Currently approximately nine miles, of the 67 miles of seashore beach is closed for 

resource protection. Much of that closure will begin to come down 

and by the fall all of it will come down and the beaches will be fully 

open. Over 53 miles of the seashore beach are open and accessible 

to beach goers. Over 27 miles are available for ORV use. 

On July 4th the National Park Service reported 2,557 vehicles on 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore beaches. To our knowledge no 

ORV has been denied access to the beach since the consent decree 

was entered. There’s a lot of beach available for all users. Even 

sharing some of that beach with the wildlife that has little other 

place to go. 

It also appears that many users are enjoying the beaches of Dare 

County. The Dare County Visitor Bureau reports that visitation 

measured by occupancy at hotels and rental homes was up 6.3 percent in May, the first month of the consent decree compared to 

May 2007 despite the sagging economy and high gas prices. As 

Senator Burr mentioned the drop in visitation to the seashore of 

14 percent, we’re aware of that figure. But it’s also interesting to 

note that the drop in visitation to the seashore was 20.2 percent 

prior to the consent decree and has decreased to 10 percent since 

the consent decree was entered. 

Let me conclude on a personal note. I’ve visited and driven on 

the beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore for 30 years to 

enjoy some of the best birding and fishing on the East Coast as 

many others have. I’ve observed the dramatic increase in vehicles 

and general use of that beach. I’ve also observed the dramatic declines in wildlife that has occurred during that period of time. 

I agree entirely with Senator Burr that Cape Hatteras is a very 

unique and special place and a national treasure for all of our citizens. I believe the management measures in the consent decree 

provide much needed and appropriate protections to the seashore’s 

wildlife. While allowing access for families, fishermen, water sport 

enthusiasts and ORV users and should remain in place until final 

ORV and management regulation is put in place. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and present these 

comments and look forward to any questions you may have. 
43 

1 Exec. Order No. 11644, 37 Fed. Reg. 2,877 (Feb. 8, 1972). 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DERB S. CARTER, JR., ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, CHAPEL HILL, NC, ON S. 3113 

My name is Derb S. Carter, Jr. I am an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. We represented the National 

Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife in the litigation that resulted in the consent decree that is the subject of Senate Bill 3113. This testimony is submitted on 

behalf of the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, and the Southern Environmental Law Center. Because the consent decree provides overdue protection of the natural resources of Cape Hatteras National Seashore and allows for appropriately managed off-road vehicle (‘‘ORV’’) use, we oppose 

Senate Bill 3113, legislation that would mandate a return to management practices 

that were resulting in declines and disappearance of wildlife from the Seashore. 

SUMMARY

On April 30, 2008, Dare County, Hyde County, an alliance of off-road vehicle advocacy groups, the National Park Service, the National Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife entered a consent decree in federal court requiring the National 

Park Service to implement certain wildlife protection measures on Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore (‘‘Seashore’’) until it fulfills a more than thirty-year old obligation 

under federal law to adopt a final ORV management regulation. Senate Bill 3113, 

if enacted, would nullify this consent decree, which was agreed to by all parties and 

approved by the court, and would instead reinstate previous management guidelines 

that resulted in declines and disappearance of wildlife on the Seashore. We urge 

this committee and the Senate to oppose any effort to enact this legislation. 

The consent decree implements the recommendations of Department of the Interior scientists to protect wildlife species on Cape Hatteras National Seashore until 

a final ORV plan and regulation is adopted. The species management measures include temporary closures to prevent disturbance of birds during the critical nesting 

season and restrictions on night driving to protect nesting sea turtles. These measures are necessary to halt the precipitous declines of species on the Seashore. Preliminary monitoring results from the National Park Service are encouraging, and 

all species appear to be benefiting from the management measures required by the 

consent decree. In addition, the Department of the Interior and National Park Service are required to protect and preserve the Seashore and its wildlife. This consent 

decree is intended to bring the agency into compliance with its legal mandate regarding wildlife while it completes its work to comply with mandates to manage 

ORV use. 

The species management requirements of the consent decree have not unreasonably restricted use of the Seashore. Residents and visitors are familiar with seasonal 

ORV prohibitions for resource protection and in front of the seven villages where 

ORV use is prohibited during the summer for families to enjoy sunbathing, swimming, and other nonvehicular activities. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore has approximately 67 miles of beaches. As of 

July 24, of the 67 miles of beaches on the Seashore, the area temporarily closed to 

ORV and pedestrian use for natural resource protection was 9.1 miles. In contrast, 

over 53 miles of beach are open and available for families to enjoy on foot at the 

Seashore. Similarly, 26.8 miles of the Seashore are available for ORV use. ORV 

users have taken advantage of these areas; on July 4, 2008, 2,557 vehicles used Seashore beaches. 

The consent decree will remain in effect until the National Park Service adopts 

a final management plan and rule through a negotiated rulemaking process. It requires that the National Park Service publish the final ORV management regulation by April 2011. The consent decree makes clear that the final plan will replace 

the management requirements in the consent decree and the requirements in the 

consent decree are not binding on the negotiated rulemaking or the negotiated rulemaking committee. 

BACKGROUND

In 1972, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11644 requiring federal land 

management agencies to publish regulations for all federal lands designating ORV 

areas and trails and ensuring ORV use does not harm natural resources.1 National 
44 

2 36 C.F.R. § 4.10(a). 

3 Cape Cod National Seashore, Assateague Island National Seashore, Gulf Islands National 

Seashore, Fire Island National Seashore, and Padre Island National Seashore have regulations 

managing ORV use. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 7.65, 7.67, 7.20, 7.12, and 7.75. Cumberland Island National Seashore, Canaveral National Seashore, and Point Reyes National Seashore all prohibit 

off-road vehicles entirely. See http://www.nps.gov/cuis/planyourvisit/hours.htm; http:// 

www.nps.gov/cana/faqs.htm; http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/lawsandpolicies— 

compendium2005.pdf. Of the ten national seashores, only Cape Hatteras National Seashore and 

Cape Lookout National Seashore have failed to enact regulations managing ORV use. 4Declaration of Walker Golder ¶ 5, filed in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, et al, Feb. 20, 2008 (summarizing North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission data on 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore bird populations). 5 Id. 

6 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE: 2007 ANNUAL 

TURTLE REPORT 5 (2007) (reporting 82 nests and 115 false crawls during the 2007 season). 7See Letter from Pete Benjamin, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, to Mike Murray, National Park 

Service (April 24, 2007) (amending the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s biological opinion evaluating the interim plan and prescribing performance measures, including that the sea turtle nest 

to false crawl ratio be less than 1:1). 8Together, Defenders of Wildlife, The National Audubon Society, and SELC have over two 

million members and supporters total, with more than 60,000 members and supporters in North 

Carolina. 9Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Dare County, et al. Motion to Intervene in Defenders of Wildlife, 

et al. v. National Park Service, et al. 1, Nov. 28, 2007. 10 Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Association website, http://capehatterasapa.org/. 

Park Service regulations prohibit ORV use in national parks and seashores unless 

and until parkspecific ORV regulations are published.2 While other national seashores have complied with the requirement to issue plans and regulations for ORV 

use,3 Cape Hatteras has not. 

In 2007, the National Park Service issued an ‘‘interim plan’’ for species management on the Seashore which in most respects simply reduced previous management 

of species to writing. In the decade prior to the ‘‘interim plan,’’ protected colonially 

nesting waterbirds on Seashore beaches declined 86% and threatened piping plovers 

declined from 14 pairs in 1996 to 6 pairs in 2007.4 The first year of the ‘‘interim 

plan,’’ 2007, was one of the worst bird breeding seasons on record and two colonial 

waterbird species failed to successfully nest on the Seashore beaches at all.5 Unsuccessful nesting attempts by threatened and endangered sea turtles exceeded successful nesting.6 As a result, the Park Service exceeded the amount of incidental 

taking authorized under the Endangered Species Act for threatened piping plovers 

and threatened or endangered sea turtles on the Seashore.7

In October 2007, the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife filed a 

lawsuit against the National Park Service, challenging the ‘‘interim plan’’ for species 

management on the Seashore.8 The organizations were concerned about the continuing decline of species on the Seashore and the fact the ‘‘interim plan’’ failed to 

implement the sciencebased management recommendations from Department of the 

Interior scientists. Dare and Hyde Counties and an alliance of ORV advocacy groups 

intervened in the lawsuit on the basis that they represented ‘‘local governments, 

ORV enthusiasts, recreational anglers, and ORV service providers . . . the parties 

that will be most immediately and directly affected by the outcome of this case.’’9

On April 30, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina 

approved a consent decree, agreed to and recommended to the court by all parties 

including the intervenors; it addressed driving on the beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the protection of wildlife there until a final ORV management 

plan is adopted. 

CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE CONSENT DECREE

The consent decree requires the National Park Service to publish a plan and regulations designating areas or trails for ORV driving on the Seashore, as required by 

federal law. The regulations must be published no later than April 1, 2011. In addition, to address declining wildlife populations, the consent decree requires that the 

National Park Service implement measures to protect breeding birds and sea turtles 

from disturbance until a final ORV management plan is adopted. 

The parties to the consent decree are Dare County, Hyde County, Cape Hatteras 

Access Preservation Alliance, the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, the National Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. The Cape Hatteras 

Access Preservation Alliance is an umbrella organization that includes the Outer 

Banks Preservation Association, the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club, and the North 

Carolina Beach Buggy Association.10 All parties in the lawsuit supported the consent decree and recommended that the court approve it. 
45 

11 Consent Decree Hr’g Tr. 45:9-14, April 30, 2008. Despite this representation in federal court 

that they negotiated and supported the consent decree, CHAPA and its member organizations 

have sought to override the agreement they crafted and joined through this proposed legislation. 

CHAPA has listed instructions and posted a sample letter to encourage its members to support 

this legislation. The Outer Banks Preservation Association, the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, and the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club have similarly advocated for their members to 

support this legislation overturning the agreement they entered into. 12Press Release, National Park Service, Agreement Reached to Preserve Wildlife and Recreation Opportunities on Cape Hatteras National Seashore (May 1, 2008). 13See e.g., UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, 

AND PROTECTION PROTOCOLS FOR COLONIALLY NESTING WATERBIRDS AT CAPE 

HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA 13 (2005)(recommending 100m to 

200m buffers for different colonial waterbirds); UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) ATLANTIC COAST POPULATION REVISED RECOVERY PLAN 192-194 (1996)(recommending buffer distances for pedestrians and 

ORVs). 14 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROTOCOLS FOR NESTING SEA TURTLES AT CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH 

CAROLINA (2005). 

That unanimous support for the consent decree was the result of extensive negotiations among all parties and detailed consideration of all affected interests. When 

asked by the court whether the counties and ORV coalition supported the consent 

decree, their attorney responded, ‘‘There have been intense negotiations between the 

parties here. Our clients have participated in those negotiations in good faith. A settlement has been worked out that is, I think, in nobody’s mind a perfect solution. 

We believe that we participated in the process in good faith and we join in asking 

the court to enter the consent decree.’’11 The commissioners of both counties held 

public meetings and voted to approve the settlement, and the ORV coalition similarly met and authorized their attorney to sign the consent decree. Similarly, the 

Park Service stated, ‘‘The agreement reached between the NPS and the other parties to the lawsuit is a creative solution that addressed a tough issue. This well 

thought out plan will serve as an example of how we fulfill our responsibilities and 

meet the needs of all parties involved.’’12 National Audubon Society and Defenders 

of Wildlife also recommended approval of the consent decree. 

WHAT DOES THE CONSENT DECREE REQUIRE?

The consent decree requires that the National Park Service provide places for federally and state protected birds and sea turtles to nest on the Seashore during the 

breeding seasons—generally April to July or August for birds and May to November 

for sea turtles. ORV use is restricted at historic bird breeding sites in the spring 

to provide disturbance-free areas that allow the birds to set up territories or colonies 

and to nest. The pre-nesting areas still allow ORV use of the inlets and Cape Hatteras Point. During the months of the year before the establishment of pre-nesting 

closures on March 15 and after the completion of the bird and sea turtle breeding, 

resource management closures do not limit ORV use of the ocean beaches of the 

Seashore. 

If birds do begin to nest in the pre-nesting closures or other areas outside these 

prenesting closures, buffers are established around the nesting areas to prevent disturbance. The species-specific disturbance buffers are based on the ‘‘moderate protection recommendations’’ from peer-reviewed reports prepared by scientists in the 

United States Geological Survey (a part of the Department of the Interior) at the 

request of the National Park Service and on the recovery plan for the Atlantic Coast 

population of the threatened piping plover developed and issued by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service.13 Those reports were based on a thorough review of the bestavailable science. Depending on where the nesting occurs, ORV corridors and/or pedestrian access may or may not be affected by the buffers. The scientifically determined disturbance buffers may limit ORV and/or pedestrian use of an area until 

breeding is completed. 

Sea turtles, which primarily nest and hatch during the night, are protected under 

the consent decree by closure of the beaches to ORV use from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. May 

1 through September 15 and a requirement for permits, driver education, and light 

restrictions from September 16 through November 15. These restrictions are also 

based on the best-available science, including the United States Geological Survey 

recommendations.14

EFFECTS OF THE CONSENT DECREE ON VISITORS TO THE SEASHORE

Under the consent decree, only those areas used by breeding birds and areas immediately surrounding sea turtle nests are closed to ORV use during daylight hours. 
46 

15OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BEACH ACCESS REPORT FOR 

JULY 24 2008 (2008) (‘‘July 24 Beach Access Report’’). 16Press Release, Outer Banks Group, Second Act of Vandalism of Shorebird Closure Fencing 

(May 19, 2008), at http://www.nps.gov/caha/parknews/second-act-of-vandalism-of-shorebird-closure-fencing.htm. 17Press Release, Outer Banks Group, A Deliberate Violation of Resource Protection Area for 

Least Tern Colony with Chicks and Nests (July 28, 2008), http://www.nps.gov/caha/parknews/ 

a-deliberate-violationof-resource-protection-area-for-least-tern-colony-with-chicks-and-nests.htm. 18 Irene Nolan, Dodging the bullet on Memorial Day Weekend, ISLAND FREE PRESS, May 

19, 2008, http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/05.19.2008- 

DispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html. 19 Irene Nolan, New dispatches from the beachfront: Access update, getting smart about beach 

driving, manners and laws, and July 4 report, ISLAND FREE PRESS, http:// 

www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/07.11.2008- 

ShootingTheBreezeNewDispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html. This level of ORV activity indicates 

that there has been little to no effect on overall ORV use of the beach, with the busiest holiday 

weekends in previous years reportedly approaching only 2,200 vehicles. Notice of Intent (NOI) 

To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for an Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (ORV Management Plan) for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC, 71 Fed. Reg. 

71552 (Dec. 11, 2006). 20 Irene Nolan, New dispatches from the beachfront: Access update, getting smart about beach 

driving, manners and laws, and July 4 report, ISLAND FREE PRESS, http:// 

www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/07.11.2008- 

ShootingTheBreezeNewDispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html. 21OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR JULY 24, 2008 1 (2008) (‘‘July 24 Resource Report’’). 

Breeding closures are removed when birds complete nesting and chicks fledge. Turtle nest closures are removed after the nest has hatched. As the breeding seasons 

for birds and turtles progresses and then winds down, the total area opened or 

closed to ORV use changes in response to breeding and nesting activity. This approach ensures that scientifically supported protections are put in place when needed to protect wildlife. In addition, this approach requires extensive monitoring and 

management of resources in order to make beaches available to vehicles quickly 

after turtles hatch or chicks fledge. An alternative approach, also recommended by 

Department of Interior scientists, is to close to ORV access key nesting areas around 

the inlets and Cape Point year-round. 

To date, resource closures under the consent decree have only affected small 

stretches of the Seashore’s beaches. Cape Hatteras National Seashore has approximately 67 miles of beaches. On July 24, 2008, 9.1 miles were temporarily closed for 

natural resource protection; 53.3 miles of Seashore were open to pedestrians; and 

26.8 miles were open to ORV traffic. Cape Point, though temporarily closed during 

to protect piping plovers, was opened to pedestrian access on July 22, 2008.15

The size of some closures is, in part, a result of vandalism of buffer fencing. The 

National Park Service has documented four separate incidents of vandalism of resource closures. Two of those acts of vandalism occurred on Hatteras Island16 and 

two occurred on Bodie Island.17 In each instance, the first act of vandalism triggered 

a 50 meter buffer expansion and the second act of vandalism resulted in expansion 

a 100 meter buffer expansion. 

Moreover, the two holiday weekends that have taken place under the consent decree appear to have been successful for tourism in the area. According to the local 

online newspaper, the Island Free Press, the usually busy Memorial Day weekend 

‘‘was, well, like any other holiday weekend on Hatteras and Ocracoke’’ despite the 

‘‘unprecedented beach closures.’’18 This trend continued through the Fourth of July 

weekend; the Park Service reported 2,557 vehicles were on Seashore beaches on 

July 4th.19 The Island Free Press stated, ‘‘There are beaches open to off-road vehicles on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands—despite the impression that some folks have 

that all beaches are closed down. Even through the July 4 holiday weekend, there 

was room on those open beaches for anyone who wanted to drive to the ocean’s 

edge.’’20

EFFECTS OF THE CONSENT DECREE ON WILDLIFE ON THE SEASHORE

It is too early in the first breeding season under the consent decree to have a complete data set, but preliminary results from the National Park Service’s weekly Resource Management Reports are encouraging. By the last week in July, piping plovers had increased from 6 breeding pairs in 2007 to 11 pairs in 2008, an 83% increase for this threatened species.21 Fledged piping plover chicks nearly doubled 

from 4 to 7 during the same period, the highest number of fledged piping plover 
47 

22Declaration of Walker Golder Attachment 7, filed in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National 

Park Service, et al, Feb. 20, 2008. 23OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR JUNE 18, 2008 2 (2008). 24See Id. 25 Id. at 3. 26 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE: 2007 ANNUAL 

TURTLE REPORT 5 (2007). 27 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INC., ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL HABITAT 

DESIGNATION OF THE WINTERING PIPING PLOVER 2-14 (2008). 28 Id. 2-17. 29OUTER BANKS VISITORS BUREAU, GROSS OCCUPANCY SUMMARY 1994-2007, 

www.outerbanks.org/pdf/GrosslOccupancylSummarylreceipts.pdf. 30http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/ 31 Id. 

chicks on the Seashore since 1998.22 American oystercatchers, which declined 42% 

between 1999 and 2007, were down one pair this year to 21 breeding pairs on Seashore beaches, but at least 20 additional oystercatchers were present, some of which 

appeared to be paired.23 Oystercatchers have equaled last year’s total of 10 fledged 

chicks, with up to 7 more possible, which raises the hope that the oystercatcher 

breeding population will continue to recover in coming years.24 The overall number 

of nesting colonial waterbirds has increased, and black skimmers are nesting again 

on Seashore beaches, after failing to nest at all last year. 

Additionally, the number of successful sea turtle nesting attempts has increased 

to 92 so far in 2008, up from 82 all of last year. As of July 24, there have been 

92 successfully laid sea turtle nests and only 82 unsuccessful nesting attempts,25

reversing last season’s ratio under the ‘‘interim plan’’ when the number of unsuccessful nests, 115, far exceeded the number of successful nests, 82.26 Based on these 

preliminary indicators, all species appear to be benefiting from the management 

measures required by the consent decree. However, due to the steep population declines over the last decade, it will take more than one or two years of proper management for beach nesting birds to recover fully at the Seashore. 

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE CONSENT DECREE

As with environmental effects, it is too early to assess the economic effects, if any, 

of the restrictions on beach driving. Approximately 2.5 million visitors come to the 

Seashore each year. A 2008 government-contracted study concluded that 2.7 to 4% 

of these visitors are ORV users.27 That study also estimated that 9% of the visitors 

to the Seashore would return more often if driving were restricted on the beaches.28

The Dare County Visitors Bureau reports that visitation during May 2008 (the 

first month of the consent decree) as measured by occupancy of motels, cottages, and 

other accommodations, was 6.31% higher than May 2007, a greater increase in visitation than the average increases for May over the past five years.29 This increase 

in visitation occurred despite a sagging economy and record high gas prices. 

The National Park Service reports a drop in visitation this year to Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore of 14.5% through June 2008 as compared to the same period last 

year.30 This reflects an overall drop in visitation to the entire national park system 

this year. However, the drop in visitation to Cape Hatteras National Seashore this 

year prior to implementation of the consent decree (January-April) was 20.2% compared to a 10% drop after implementation of the consent decree. Visitation at nearby Cape Lookout National Seashore, unaffected by the consent decree, has dropped 

35% through June 2008 compared to the same period last year.31 Accordingly, the 

consent decree appears to have had little to no negative effects on tourism. 

PARK SERVICE NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING TO ADOPT A FINAL ORV MANAGEMENT PLAN

In January 2008, the Department of the Interior established an advisory committee representing diverse interests and charged with recommending a proposed 

final ORV management plan to the National Park Service. The consent decree does 

not restrict or undermine this process. The lawsuit that led to the consent decree 

challenged the ongoing management of wildlife on the Seashore under the interim 

plan and sought to halt the decline and disappearance of birds on the Seashore during the time it will take for a final ORV plan—the focus of the negotiated rulemaking—to be adopted. According to the Park Service, it will take three years to 

go through rulemaking to adopt a final ORV plan. At that time, as the consent decree states, the final plan will replace the management requirements in the consent 

decree. By its terms, the consent decree is not, nor could it be, binding on the negotiated ruling. 
48 

32 16 U.S.C § 459a-2. 33 16 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2-4. 34 16 U.S.C. § 1. 35 National Park Service Management Policies 1.4.3 (2006). 

CAPE HATTERAS IS A NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNIT

Cape Hatteras was established as the nation’s first national seashore to be managed by the National Park Service in 1937. The enabling legislation creating the 

Seashore states 

Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable 

for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and 

other recreational activities of a similar nature, which shall be developed 

for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a 

primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with 

the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in the area.32

Neither ‘‘off-road vehicles’’ nor driving on the Seashore beaches are mentioned in 

any legislation creating the Seashore. In 1940, Congress passed a bill that authorized hunting on the Seashore and added the words ‘‘Recreational Area’’ to the name 

of the Seashore, but did not change the basic mandates for the park and did not 

address the use of ORVs. 

The obligation of the Park Service to protect the natural resources of the Seashore 

is unaffected by its designation as a ‘‘National Seashore’’ instead of a ‘‘National 

Park,’’ because under the General Authorities Act, Congress mandated all units of 

Park System be managed under a unified system.33 The Seashore is managed by 

the National Park Service under the congressional mandates of the National Park 

Service Organic Act. In that Act, Congress declared that the primary purpose of the 

Seashore is ‘‘to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by 

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’34 Moreover, National Park Service management policies governing the Seashore recognize that ‘‘when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing enjoyment of them, conservation is predominant.’’35

Protection of the natural resources on national parks and seashores to leave them 

unimpaired for future generations is, and should be, paramount. The consent decree 

strikes the appropriate balance in addressing conservation and recreation interests 

and provides much needed protection to wildlife on The Seashore until a final ORV 

management plan is adopted. 

CONCLUSION

In sum, all parties and interests agreed in open court to the terms of the consent 

decree augmenting the terms of the ‘‘interim plan’’ until such time as the National 

Park Service adopts a final ORV management plan, and a federal court approved 

it. As the statistics above show, the slight increase in the portions of the beach that 

have been closed to ORV use under the consent decree has had only a negligible 

impact, if any, on tourism and on the numbers of ORVs using the Seashore. At the 

same time, however, the closures have had a strikingly positive effect on the success 

of the endangered and threatened species that live and breed at Cape Hatteras. We 

ask, therefore, that this Committee oppose Senate Bill 3113 and leave the consent 

decree in place. 

[Graphics have been retained in subcommittee files.] 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. Now 

we will hear from Coline Jenkins. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF COLINE JENKINS, PRESIDENT, ELIZABETH 

CADY STANTON TRUST, GREENWICH, CT 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you Chairman Akaka. It is an extreme 

pleasure for me to be here. I’m very appreciative that you brought 

this legislation forward to this hearing. I also thank Hillary 

Rodham Clinton, Senator Clinton, for her leadership in bringing 

this bill forward. 
49 

I am Coline Jenkins Sahlin. I’m a resident of Old Greenwich, 

Connecticut and President of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust. 

I’m also the great, great granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of America’s foremost leaders in 

the women’s suffrage movement. In 1848, she publicly called for 

the women’s right to vote. Later in 1878, she appeared before the 

Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. 

In 1892, she appeared before the House Committee Judiciary 

Committee. I do have a graphic from that period showing her appearing, which I’d like to share with you. At both hearings she supported the passage of the women’s suffrage and the expansion of 

women’s rights. 

Today I come here before you in support of Senate bill 1816, the 

creation of a women’s rights history trail, its inclusion on the National Registry and its support by State Historic Preservation Offices across the whole Nation. Back in the 1800s, when Elizabeth 

appeared before the Senate and the House, the committee members 

had a different set of fish to fry than what we discuss today. They 

were struggling with the issues of Nation building. 

Were we, as Nation, going to extend rights to 51 percent of the 

population, women, or were women particularly those married, to 

lack fundamental legal rights as dictated by the traditions of 

English common law. Since women were American citizens, Stanton argued. They also should enjoy all rights including the ultimate 

right of citizenship, the right to vote. 

Stanton would never live to see these rights enshrined in the 

Constitution. She died in 1902. As we all know the 19th amendment was passed in 1920. 

My mother, Rhoda Barney Jenkins was born 1 month before the 

passage of the 19th amendment. She died last summer on the eve 

of August 25, the day that Congress granted women the vote 87 

years earlier. My mother’s life is a measurement of women’s rights 

progress. 

This bill is crucial and necessary in honoring our Nation’s history. We cannot understand the present without understanding our 

past. The struggle to gain full citizenship for women is called 

America’s Bloodless Revolution. It is a war unlike most American 

wars. 

The Women’s Rights Bloodless Revolution lasted 72 years rather 

than the typical 4 years. The first cannon shot of this revolution 

was fired with words in 1848 at the first Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. The first shot was the public reading of the Women’s Declaration of Sentiments. It was modeled after 

the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, 72 

years earlier. 

At this first Women’s Rights Convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton 

rose to the dias and spoke these words. ‘‘We hold these truths to 

be self-evident that all men and women are created equal. That 

they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights 

among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’’ 

More than 125 years later, I went to my great grandmother’s 

house, sorry, my great, great grandmother’s house in Seneca Falls 

in the early 1970s. By then her house had been acquired by a pri-
50 

vate foundation. While in Seneca Falls I decided to go to the site 

of the first Women’s Rights Convention at the Wesleyan Chapel. 

When I arrived it was obvious, the Chapel had been converted 

into a laundromat. One would never know that this building was 

the birthplace of a blueprint that led to one of America’s greatest 

bestowal of democratic freedoms in its history. A blueprint that enlarged the freedoms of the 51 percent of the population by touching 

on voting rights, access to higher education and professions as well 

as other freedoms. 

In my mind I heard the voice of my great, great grandmother 

saying, ‘‘it’s a wonder the republic has done as well as it has when 

it has used only half of its resources.’’ When I inserted my quarters 

into the washing machine, I said to myself this is amazing. I, an 

American citizen, am washing my dirty clothes in one of America’s 

historically, most significant sites. 

It was the equivalent of putting a laundromat inside Independence Hall at Philadelphia. I knew then it was a matter of time before America would wake up and honor this site and other sites 

tied to women’s rights. 

During the past 40 years since my visit to Seneca Falls, I have 

witnessed the creation of many milestones. Including the establishment of the Women’s Rights National Historical Park, which is one 

of seven parks of the 391 units in the Park System that is specifically dedicated to commemorating some aspect of women’s history. 

I have also, in Seneca Falls, witnessed the establishment of the 

Women’s Hall of Fame, the McClintock House where the Declaration of Sentiments was written and the Hunt House where the tea 

party was at which that revolution was fomented. 

Both of these sites are in the National Park. This is the epicenter 

of the expansion of American democracy. What’s important is the 

Park Service did not spend a dime on acquiring any of these sites. 

Furthermore the bill before you has no authority for land acquisitions, so it’s an inexpensive good buy. 

The crowning moment came for me in 1998, which was the 150th 

anniversary of the first Women’s Rights Convention. Who would 

imagine this celebration that the celebration of legal rights would 

attract 20,000 people in 1 day to a National Park? This is a personal pleasure that such a dry subject as legal rights became a rock 

star. 

Now there exists a marvelous synergy between these National 

Park buildings and adjacent sites, the Harriet Tubman home, the 

Susan B. Anthony house. These are owned by non-profits, but 

they’re open to the public. So today with the passage of this bill 

we link these sites with other sites across the Nation where women 

made history and we will ensure that women’s rights history will 

not evaporate or become a site of a laundromat. 

The significance of women’s history is captured by Edith Mayo, 

Curator Emeritus of the Smithsonian, the political history division 

of the Museum of American History. Curator Emeritus Mayo said, 

‘‘Women need to see themselves as actors and participants in 

American history. There is a very crucial connection between being 

visible with your history and empowering yourself in the present 

and in the future.’’ The same can be said for all Americans as our 

society is based on ‘‘E pluribus Unum.’’ 
51 

Specifically the bill before you, 1816, builds on this belief. I support three principle aspects. One is the auto route that goes across 

upper New York State that tells the history of the epicenter of the 

Women’s Rights Movement. This would include signage, maps, educational books, etc. 

The second part I support is surveying, evaluating and nominating women’s rights history properties to the National Registry 

of Historic Places. This would give a nationwide, overarching 

project called the National Women’s Rights History Project Registry. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Jenkins, would you please summarize your 

statement? 

Ms. JENKINS. I’d be delighted to do that. In conclusion this is one 

of the greatest honors of my life to address you, the representatives 

of we, the people. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenkins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLINE JENKINS, PRESIDENT, ELIZABETH CADY STANTON

TRUST, GREENWICH, CT 

I am Coline Jenkins, a resident of Old Greenwich, Connecticut, and the president 

of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust. I am the great-great granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of America’s foremost leaders of the women’s suffrage movement. In 1848, she publicly called for women’s right to vote. Later, in 

1878, she appeared before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. In 

1892, she appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. At both hearings, she 

supported the passage of women’s suffrage and the expansion of women’s rights. 

Today, in this hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, I come before you in support of Senate Bill 1816—the creation of a women’s rights history 

trail, its inclusion in the National Registry, and its support by state historic preservation offices across the country. Back in the 1800’s, when Elizabeth appeared before both the Senate and the House, the committee members had bigger fish to fry. 

They were struggling with the issues of nation building. Were we, as a nation, going 

to extend rights to 51% of the population—women—or were women, particularly 

those who married, to lack fundamental legal rights, as dictated by the traditions 

of English common law? 

Since women were American citizens, Stanton argued, they also should enjoy the 

ultimate right of citizenship—the right to vote! 

Stanton would never live to see that right enshrined in the Constitution with the 

passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. My mother, Rhoda Barney Jenkins, was 

born one month before its passage; she died last summer on the eve of August 25, 

the day Congress granted women the vote 87 years earlier. My mother’s life is a 

measurement of women’s rights progress. 

This bill, too, is a crucial and necessary step in honoring our national history. We 

cannot understand the present without understanding our past. The struggle to gain 

full citizenship for women is called ‘‘America’s Greatest Bloodless Revolution.’’ It 

was a war unlike most American wars. The women’s rights bloodless revolution 

lasted 72 years. The first cannon shot of this revolution was fired with words in 

1848 at the First Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. The first 

shot was the public reading of the women’s Declaration of Sentiments. It was modeled on the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, 72 years earlier in 1776. At this first Women’s Rights Convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton rose 

to the dais to speak these words: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men AND WOMEN are 

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 

unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of 

Happiness. 

More than 125 years later, I visited my great-great grandmother’s home in Seneca 

Falls, in the early 1970s. By then her house had been secured by a private foundation. While in Seneca Falls, I decided to also visit the site of the first Women’s 

Rights Convention, held at the Wesleyan Chapel. Upon arrival, it was obvious the 

chapel had been converted into a laundromat. From outward appearances, one 
52 

would never know this building was the birthplace of a blueprint that led to the 

greatest bestowal of democratic freedoms in the history of the United States. A blueprint that enlarged the freedoms of 51% of the population by touching on voting 

rights, access to higher education and professions, as well as other freedoms. In my 

mind, I heard the voice of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, saying, ‘‘It is wonderful the republic has done as well as it has when it has used only half of its resources.’’ 

When I inserted my quarters into a washing machine, I said to myself, this is 

amazing that I, a citizen of the United States, am washing my dirty clothes in one 

of America’s most historically significant sites. I realized the neglect of the building 

was the equivalent of putting a laundromat inside Independence Hall at Philadelphia. I knew then, it was a matter of time before America woke up to honor this 

site and other important sites. As my clothes were spinning, my consciousness was 

rising. 

During the past forty years, since my first visit to Seneca Falls, I have witnessed 

the creation of many milestones there, including the establishment of Women’s 

Rights National Historical Park, one of seven parks, out of 391 units in the National 

Park system, that is specifically dedicated to commemorating some aspect of women’s history. I have witnesses the establishment of The National Women’s Hall of 

Fame. I have witnessed the purchase of the M’Clintock House, where the Declaration of Sentiments was written; and the Hunt House, where revolution was fomented with talk and a teaspoon. Both houses are parts of Women’s Rights Historical National Park. The list of milestones in Seneca Falls goes on and on in the campaign to breathe life back into the people and places that made this an epicenter 

of the expansion of American democracy. 

It’s important to note that the park service did not spend a dime on acquisition 

of these sites. Furthermore, the bill before you has no authority for land acquisition. 

A crowning moment for me came in 1998 at the 150th Anniversary of the first 

women’s rights convention. Who would imagine that the celebration of legal rights 

would attract 20,000 people in just one day to this national park? What a pleasure 

to see such a dry subject—legal rights—become a rock star. 

Now there exists a marvelous synergy between these national park buildings and 

neighboring sites, such as the Harriet Tubman Home and the Susan B. Anthony 

House, both owned by non-profits and open to the public. Today, with the passage 

of this Bill, we link these sites to others across the nation, where women made history. We will ensure that women’s rights history will not evaporate. 

The significance of women’s history is captured by Edith Mayo, Curator Emeritus 

of the Smithsonian—The Political History Division of the Museum of American History. Curator Mayo said, ‘‘Women need to see themselves as actors and participants 

in American history. ...There is a very crucial connection between being visible with 

your history in the past and empowering yourself in the present and the future.’’ 

The same can be said for all American citizens, as our society is based on ‘‘E 

pluribus unum.’’ 

The specifics of Senate Bill 1816 build on this belief. 

This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a commemorative 

trail in connection with the existing Women’s Rights National Historical Park. It 

would create an auto route across upper New York State that would link other properties historically and thematically associated with the struggle for women’s rights. 

Practically speaking, the auto route will include uniform signage, maps, educational 

handbooks, interpretive guides and websites. This legislation does not authorize any 

land acquisition, but it links sites, both privately and publicly owned. The legislation would assure that all sites on the tour have verifiable connections to the expansion of women’s rights. 

The second piece of this legislation recognizes that, while upper New York State 

is the site of the first phase of the struggle, the national as a whole granted women 

their rights. Thus the second piece of the legislation would authorize the Secretary 

of the Interior to make annual grants for up to five years to assist State historic 

preservation offices in surveying, evaluating and nominating women’s rights history 

properties to the National Register of Historic Places. This Registry would thus become the foundation of an overarching project called ‘‘The National Women’s Rights 

History Project National Registry.’’ 

As an aside, many states have already amassed information, on a parallel course 

with this proposed legislation, such as Arizona, which has an excellent web site 

called The Arizona Women’s Heritage Trail; www.womensheritagetrail.org. Other 

states have been active in documenting women’s history. This relatively inexpensive 

legislation will help fuel tourism in your states of Hawaii, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Tennessee, Louisiana, Wyoming, Colorado, Alabama, Arkansas, Oregon, 

Vermont and Montana—all states packed with women’s rights history. 
53 

Regarding Bill S-1816, the Secretary of the Interior will authorize the update of 

the existing website, ‘‘Places Where Women Made History.’’ The website currently 

provides travel itineraries based on geographic areas and themes related to women’s 

rights. Finally, authorization would be given to make matching grants and give 

technical assistance to governmental and non-governmental entities to develop interpretive and educational programs. 

In closing, testifying before Congress is one of the greatest privileges of my life. 

Women did not start out as equal citizens, but our system of government enabled 

them to achieve that status with its guaranteed rights of free speech, assembly, and 

the right to petition government. It enabled my great-great grandmother to come 

before Congress; it has given me the honor of coming before you, the representatives 

of ‘‘We, the People.’’ Yet I leave with a warning. The 19th Amendment, which was 

called the ‘‘Susan B. Anthony Amendment,’’ was introduced 41 years to Congress 

before it was passed. That is a very long time to wait. 

I encourage you to pass Bill S-1816 before the close of the 110th Congress that 

I understand adjourns in late September. If not, I will return, for as Susan B. Anthony said, ‘‘Failure is impossible!’’ 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. Now 

we’ll hear from Mr. Braunlich. Please proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. BRAUNLICH, PRESIDENT, 

MONROE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY, MONROE, MI 

Mr. BRAUNLICH. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka. My name is 

William H. Braunlich and I’m privileged to serve as President of 

the Monroe County Historical Society. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the River Raisin Battlefield legislation 

and the citizens of Monroe County, Michigan. 

This past Saturday on July 26, 2008, the community of Monroe, 

Michigan was extremely honored to have the U.S. Secretary of the 

Interior, Dirk Kempthorne as our featured speaker at Monroe 

County Community College. The occasion was very special, the ceremonial signing and transfer of Plum Creek Bay from the County 

of Monroe to the citizens of the United States of America. This 126 

acre parcel of property was owned by the County of Monroe and 

the County Board of Commissioners realized that this unique wildlife habitat belongs rightfully to all of the citizens of this country 

and should be included in the magnificent and growing Detroit 

River International Wildlife Refuge. 

Through the inspirational leadership of our Congressman John 

D. Dingell, that property transfer was made and represents the genius of natural resource conservation through voluntary contribution. Today as President of the Monroe County Historical Society 

and as an elected trustee of Monroe County Community College, 

I’m proud to speak on behalf of another tremendous community collaborative and proposed contribution. Namely Monroe’s effort to 

properly share our resources and transfer to the citizens of the 

United States of America our most precious, historical asset, the 

sacred soil of the battles and the massacre of the River Raisin. 

I’m joined today by Mark Worrel, honorable Mayor of the city of 

Monroe and other leadership representatives from our community 

Jean Guyor, Gerald Welch and Michael Meyer. Each of them joins 

me on behalf of their stakeholder organizations in urging you to 

consider this legislation favorably. 

What the community of Monroe recognizes and has recognized 

for a very long time is that our 1812 battlefield and its compelling 

story does not belong just to our city or our county or even the 
54 

great State of Michigan. It belongs properly to the people of the 

United States of America. 

So, Chairman Akaka, we got it for you. The Battlefield. The 

River Raisin Battlefield is yours for the asking. 

We stand ready to host another signature event in Monroe. 

Transfer the deeds without charge to the citizens of this country 

and celebrate its incorporation into the constellation of National 

Parks in the United States. 

As Senator Levin has indicated, throughout the sweep of American history there have been the battle cries that represent galvanic moments in the national psyche, moments when horrific 

events have eliminated doubts about the stakes and the need for 

military action. Remember the Maine. Remember the Alamo. Remember Pearl Harbor. 

Remember the Raisin, although now but a faint historical whisper in the minds of many was a rousing call to action in January 

of 1813. Americans were stunned and enraged to learn that a force 

of almost 1,000 Americans was brutally decimated and that only 33 

escaped death or capture. 

U.S. newspapers called the incident, the River Raisin Massacre. 

Thousands of young men in the Northwest Territory responded to 

the call to take back Detroit, to take back Mackinac, to take back 

Michigan and the Great Lakes from British control. That call was 

heeded with steadfast American determination and grit and yes, 

lives. 

America succeeded decisively in the Battle of Lake Erie and in 

the Battle of the Thames and brought the war to a close in the 

Great Lakes Theater. Remember the Raisin was the battle cry 

which inspired Americans to action and it should be recognized, remembered and commemorated with our other powerful national 

battle cries. 

We’re very proud to inform you, Chairman Akaka, that through a powerful funding partnership, over $5.1 million has been extended for battlefield acquisition, environmental remediation, archeological investigation, academic scholarship and other related 

activities. We’ve educated ourselves about our own frontier history. 

I can tell you that we’ve been immeasurably enriched by the process. Now, we stand ready to share that history and that sacred soil 

with the citizens of this Nation and the world. 

Chairman Akaka, the River Raisin Battlefield is yours for the 

asking. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Braunlich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. BRAUNLICH, PRESIDENT, MONROE COUNTY

HISTORICAL SOCIETY, MONROE, MI, ON S. 3247 

The community of Monroe, Michigan, respectfully submits that the River Raisin 

Battlefield meets, and in many ways exceeds, the established criteria of national significance, suitability, and feasibility for inclusion in the National Park System. In 

fact, the War of 1812 River Raisin Battlefield represents a theme, site and resource 

not already adequately represented in the National Park System. And, as a tremendous bonus to the citizens of the United States of America, the proposed River Raisin National Battlefield Park is located in Monroe County, Michigan, the gateway 

county to the great state of Michigan. By way of explanation, the proposed River 

Raisin National Battlefield Park is located between Toledo, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan and is but a stone’s throw from I-75, the major traffic artery in the state of 

Michigan. The proposed River Raisin National Battlefield Park will be linked by 

walking trails to one of the most beautiful and frequented state parks in the Michi-
55 

* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files. 

gan State Park System—Sterling State Park—and is also extremely close to Plum 

Creek Bay on Lake Erie, recently donated by the County of Monroe to the Detroit 

River International Wildlife Refuge. Thus, visitors will have easy access to a splendid trifecta of War of 1812 history, exquisite natural habitat and beautiful Lake 

Erie shoreline—a National Battlefield Park, an International Wildlife Refuge and a 

Michigan State Park. 

Who are we? The Monroe County Historical Society is a Michigan Non-profit 

501C3 Charitable Organization established in 1938 and governed by a fifteen person 

board of directors. The Society’s mission is to collect, preserve, share and celebrate 

Monroe County History through innovative exhibits, programs, publications and 

support of the Monroe County Historical Museum and River Raisin Battlefield Museum. 

The Society has been at the forefront of the River Raisin Battlefield Project during 

the past decade and has funded numerous battlefield initiatives dedicated to acquisition of the battlefield, environmental remediation of the site, archeological research, academic scholarship, and educational programming. The Society’s objective 

is to foster a broader awareness of the national significance of the River Raisin Battlefield site and a deeper appreciation of the important historical role that 

Frenchtown (now Monroe) played in the history of North America. The Society has 

been joined, at every step of the way, with committed partners from the City of 

Monroe, Port of Monroe, County of Monroe, Monroe County Community College, the 

State of Michigan, and the United States Government. To date, the grants, loans 

and in-kind contributions committed to the River Raisin Battlefield project from federal, state, local and non-governmental organizations exceeds 5.1 million dollars. 

This past January of 2008, the Monroe County Historical Society commissioned 

Dr. G. Michael Pratt of Heidelberg College to chair a multi-disciplinary team of historians, archeologists and academicians to draft a nomination of the River Raisin 

Battlefield as a National Historical Landmark. The Society desired to compliment, 

assist, support and accelerate the study by the National Park Service and provide 

technical, historical and archeological data for inclusion of the River Raisin Battlefield as a National Historic Landmark and as a prospective unit of the national park 

system. Representatives of the National Park met with members of the National 

Historic Landmark Nomination team in April of 2008 and the River Raisin Battlefield was toured by the Secretary of Interior on Saturday, July 26, 2008. The 

progress on the River Raisin Battlefield Project has been impressive and substantial. 

The Monroe County Historical Society has also commissioned Brian Dunnigan, Interim Director of the world famous Clements Library, to author a monograph on the 

national significance of the battles and massacre of the River Raisin. Brian 

Dunnigan’s monograph is attached and incorporated into this written statement in 

favor of the River Raisin Battlefield legislation before the Senate National Park 

Subcommittee. By way of background, Brian Dunnigan is a highly recognized and 

noted Michigan historian and author and also serves on a National Park advisory 

committee. Brian Dunnigan’s Statement on the National Significance contributes 

greatly to the academic scholarship on these important historical events and our 

contemporary understanding of American formative history on the Northwest frontier. 

We respectfully submit the following attachments* for consideration by the US 

Senate Subcommitee on National Parks: 

1. ‘‘Statement of National Significance, River Raisin Battlefield’’ authored by 

Brian Leigh Dunnigan, Interim Director, Head of Research and Publication, Curator of Maps, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan (4 pages); 

2. ‘‘The River Raisin Monuments at Monroe, Michigan,’’ by John M. Buckley, 

141—154 [Volume 15 / 1906 / No. 2] (14 pages); 

3. ‘‘Monroe County Historical Society Funds Nomination of River Raisin Battlefield as National Historic Landmark—Press Release of February 15, 2008 (7 

pages). 

We are thrilled to report that through a tremendous community collaborative, we 

have assembled the core parcels of real estate, both by donation and by purchase. 

The River Raisin battlefield parcels are held in readiness by the Port of Monroe, 

City of Monroe, County of Monroe and the Monroe County Historical Society. The 

industrial intrusions into the battlefield site have been almost completely removed 

and the natural environment is being restored and reclaimed. 
56 

What the community of Monroe recognizes, and has recognized for a very long 

time, is that our 1812 Battlefield and its compelling story does not belong just to 

our city, or our county or even our great state of Michigan. It belongs to the people 

of the United States of America. Thus, we stand ready to transfer the River Raisin 

Battlefield to the citizens of the United States of America and to celebrate its incorporation into the National Park System. We are confident that the energy and commitment of our community, as displayed during the past decade of work on the battlefield project, will make this a successful and celebrated inclusion into our National Park System and the perfect way to commemorate the upcoming 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Braunlich for your 

statement. I want to add my welcome to the Mayor and members 

of Monroe County’s Historical Society who are present here. 

Mr. Braunlich, the Park Service’s testimony states that Congress 

should delay action in designating the River Raisin National Battlefield Park until the special resource study is completed. The 

standard procedure is to wait until the study is finished. You’ve 

heard that it might take 2 to 3 years before that occurs. 

Can you tell us why you believe it is necessary to go ahead and 

designate the national battlefield before the study is done? 

Mr. BRAUNLICH. I’m happy to respond to that, Senator Akaka, 

because I think our community has achieved a critical mass of support. The battlefield parcels are owned by the Port of Monroe, city 

of Monroe, County of Monroe and the Monroe County Historical Society. At this point all of those organizations stand ready to make 

conveyance of their respective parcels. 

You know, I respect the National Park Service’s typical study 

times and profiles and protocols. I think that there has been substantial and meaningful progress in that study. We’re extremely 

confident that ultimately the question of suitability and feasibility 

will be answered in the affirmative. 

But I think what the National Park Service failed to recognize 

is that the upcoming bicentennial, it has created just a wave of 

support for this initiative. We need to capitalize on that support 

and use it to good advantage. The community, I mean, I don’t think 

any of us are going to be around for the tercentennial, but this bicentennial has really captured the imagination and support of the 

community. 

There’s not any question about feasibility. More than 40 acres is 

ready to be transferred to the United States. As far as suitability, 

the property has been environmentally remediated and almost all 

of the industrial intrusions into the site have been removed. So I 

respect the standard protocol and standard times, but I do think 

there are exceptional times to recognize the support and the opportunity and to seize the moment. 

So I think that’s the best response to the National Park Service 

concern. 

Senator AKAKA. Ok. Thank you very much for your response. 

Ms. Coline Jenkins, the National Park Service has recommended 

deleting the two grant programs authorized in S. 1816 condemning 

that the new grant programs duplicate existing State and Federal 

authorities. In your view, why are these grant programs necessary? 

Ms. JENKINS. First, I think they’re necessary because women’s 

history, women’s rights history, women’s heritage is playing catch 

up with other types of histories. I do not see any problem with di-
57 

verting resources to this catch up operation. This is an operation 

that’s nationwide. 

It affects all 50 States. It’s trying to work with highly qualified 

organizations, the State historical preservation offices, to inventory, 

evaluate and list properties. The Senator who was recently here 

talked about its reasonable to moderate public policy. This is the 

time to moderate public policy. 

We have had public policy that has favored one type of history. 

Now it’s a good idea to perhaps bring 51 percent of the population 

into the story of history. These grants look at two types. 

They look at sites, but they look at material related to sites. The 

grants make it possible. So I strongly support having the grants. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. May I call now on Commissioner Judge and ask 

you—my understanding is that the County was involved in negotiating the consent decree, and agreed to it. If this is correct, can you 

explain why you are now supporting legislation to overturn the 

consent decree? 

Mr. JUDGE. In December 2007, Mr. Chairman, we had asked a 

court to recognize Dare County as an intervener in the lawsuit between the Defenders of the Wildlife, National Audubon and the National Park Service, Department of Interior. The judge granted 

that. However we were not a player at their table until a hearing 

on April 4th in U.S. District Court when the judge scolded the 

plaintiffs and defendants for negotiating behind closed doors and 

not being open to the public. 

It was only after that hearing that they paid some attention to 

us. But it was even later than that when they finally invited us to 

the table. But not to negotiate, to tell us, to tell us what it was 

going to be. 

We had our county attorney, assistant county manager in Raleigh at the negotiations. They sent them home. After we released 

a press release telling that the negotiations had broken off, it was 

only then that they called us back. 

It was 4:30 one afternoon when they gave us an ultimatum. That 

ultimatum was either accept this by 5 o’clock or it will go forward 

into court. The threat to Dare County was that the seashore would 

be closed down completely until negotiated rulemaking ran its 

course. 

Negotiated rulemaking is not scheduled to be completed until December 31, 2010, with implementation by April 1, 2011. Sir, we 

can’t afford to have our economy battered the way it’s been battered since April 30th that long. We’ve already had businesses reporting greater than 50 percent declines. It’s been economically 

devastating to us. 

Yes, we signed the document. We signed it under great duress. 

We were not happy with it. We felt it was the lesser of two evils. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your explanation of why you supported legislation to overturn the consent decree. 

Mr. Carter, the Park Service has established an advisory committee to help the agency complete a long term ORV management 

plan for the seashore. It is my understanding that the committee 

membership represents all the diverse stakeholders interested in 
58 

the seashore. My question to you is do you think, with the advisory 

committee’s help, the Park Service will be able to complete a long 

term management plan that is acceptable to everyone? 

Mr. CARTER. Senator Akaka, the Secretary of the Interior did establish in January a negotiated rulemaking committee composed of 

various stakeholders who had a variety of interest in the National 

Seashore. That group has been meeting frequently. There are a variety of views presented. 

The charge to that committee is to come up with and recommend 

to the Park Service an ORV management plan for the seashore. 

That can designate routes for ORV use, the types of vehicles that 

can be used and of course a consideration and that is the protection 

of resources on the seashore. We’re involved in that process. 

Our clients are a part of that stakeholder group. The counties are 

involved. The ORV groups are involved. 

We’re optimistic that a plan can be developed with input from 

that committee and that the Park Service can come up with a proposal that will both allow reasonable access and use and ORV use 

of the seashore while at the same time, protecting the natural resources on the seashore. 

Senator AKAKA. I thank you very much for your responses, each 

of you. Again, I want to thank you for testifying this afternoon before this committee. Your testimony has been very helpful. 

Before we close today I want to let you know that some members 

of the committee who were not able to be here may submit additional questions in writing. If we receive any questions, we will forward them to you and ask you to respond so that we may include 

both the questions and the answers in the official hearing record. 

Again I want to say thank you. It’s going to help us with our 

moves on these bills. I thank you again, this panel, because you 

have responded to and have given us feelings of your groups and 

all the people you represent as well. 

Ms. JENKINS. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA. So again, thank you very much. This hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(59) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF WILLIAM H. BRAUNLICH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

ON S. 3247

Question 1. Is any of the land proposed for designation by S. 3247 under imminent 

threat of development if the battlefield park is not established soon? 

Answer. Senator Burr, you are expressing an appropriate and continuing MAJOR 

concern for all of us involved in this tremendous community collaborative—-because 

the truth is that several or all of the significant battlefield parcels could be sold to 

third parties and developed in ways which are incompatible with the overall project. 

In fact, the prior owner of the largest battlefield parcel (Homrich Inc.) had been approached by a number of potential purchasers who were interested in the battlefield 

site for residential, retail, and other developments. That’s why it’s so very important 

to ‘‘seize the moment’’ and ‘‘lock in’’ the formal donation of the properties to the citizens of the United States of America. Otherwise our incredible momentum could be 

lost and the political winds could shift (at the City of Monroe, County of Monroe, 

Port of Monroe and Monroe County Historical Society) and the opportunity for the 

optimal acquisition, development and interpretation of the River Raisin Battlefield 

could be permanently destroyed. 

I have been involved with this project for almost 12 years and I don’t think the 

stars and planets will align again this way for the optimal development of the battlefield. All of the major stakeholders in the project stand ready to make conveyance 

of their respective parcels to the citizens of the United States of America. However, 

time is of the essence. The threat to the River Raisin Battlefield would become imminent at the slightest suggestion that a major economic development project was 

under consideration at this site. In light of the economic woes of our local community and the State of Michigan, the River Raisin Battlefield, which is extremely near 

to all of the transportation modalities, may look quite enticing to developers. Such 

an economic development proposal would generate a true and imminent threat to 

the acquisition, study, development and proper intrepretation of the River Raisin 

Battlefield site. 

Question 2. Was any of the suitability and feasibility study completed prior to National Park Service involvement? If so, how much and is it being used to expedite 

the study process? 

Answer. There has been a considerable body of work by a number of academicians, historians, archeologists, and historic preservationists during the past decade 

and PRIOR to the NPS study. At Congressman Dingell’s request, the NPS had been 

to several meetings of the RR Battlefield prior to the commencement of the special 

resource study. Further, to support, assist, compliment and accelerate the NPS special resource study, the Monroe County Historical Society commissioned a formal 

National Historic Landmark (NHL) nomination through Dr. Michael Pratt of Heidelberg College, and asked our NHL team to promptly assemble all of the available 

materials and get the NPS everything they need regarding the site. It may not be 

politically correct to say so, but I believe our NHL team is doing the rigorous historical and archeological spade work and thus, tremendously ‘‘facilitating’’ the NPS 

study. 

In the words of Dr. Ted Ligibel, director of Eastern Michigan’s University’s Historic Preservation Program and a key member of our NHL River Raisin Battlefield 

team: ‘‘We are reviewing war records from the British government from 1812-1814; 

taking testimony from those with knowledge of the site; reviewing newspaper ac-
60 

counts and reading first hand accounts from people who were there. We are leaving 

no stone unturned.’’ I would hasten to add that all of this work by Dr Ligabell and 

the other team members is being generously paid for by the Monroe County Historical Society is being transmitted to the National Park Service free of charge. 

Question 3. What was the size of the original battlefield and how much of the site 

is still available for designation and interpretation as a battlefield park? 

Answer. I would have to defer to our NHL team to answer the question about the 

‘‘original size’’ of River Raisin Battlefield because that question requires certain assumptions about the time, location and scope of the series of activities on the River 

Raisin Battlefield. I can say with certainty, however, that the combined acreage of 

the proposed donations to the US government (approximately 40 acres) incorporates 

the most important, desirable and historically significant land for designation and 

interpretation as a battlefield park. To be specific, the proposed donation of land includes the acreage where the original settlement of Frenchtown was located and 

where the majority of fighting occurred. 

RESPONSES OF COLINE JENKINS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

ON S. 1816

Question 1. Will the proposed commemorative trail have any impact on private 

property? 

Answer. Sites would be listed on the trail only with permission from property 

owners. There is no land acquisition authority in this bill and no land acquisition 

would be sought. Many of the likely sites are currently owned by government or 

nonprofit institutions. 

Question 2. Do you envision a visitor center for this trail at some point or does 

a suitable venue already exist to serve as an information center for the trail? 

Answer. The trail would be administered by Women’s Rights National Historical 

Park in Seneca Falls and Waterloo, NY (established by PL 96-607). A comprehensive 

visitor center exists in the Park that would serve as the information center for the 

trail. 

Question 3. How many individual sites would become part of the commemorative 

trail and how many of those are currently owned by the Federal government? 

Answer. While criteria for listing on the trail would need to be developed, preliminary assessment found that roughly 30-35 sites may be listed on this commemorative trail. Of those sites, two are owned by the Federal government and are under 

the stewardship of the National Park Service—Women’s Rights National Historical 

Park in Seneca Falls and Waterloo, NY and Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic 

Site in Hyde Park, NY. 

Question 4. Will it become necessary for the Federal government to purchase or 

lease any land or structures to establish the Women’s Suffrage Commemorative 

Trail? 

Answer. No, there is no Federal land acquisition or any lease requirements involved in the establishment and operation of the trail. 

RESPONSES OF WARREN JUDGE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

ON S. 3113

Question 1. How has use of Cape Hatteras changed under the court-approved 

agreement versus the interim management plan? 

Answer. Decades of the tradition of going to the beach at Oregon Inlet, Cape 

Point, South Beach and Hatteras Inlet were disrupted from the first of May until 

the end of July. Today, Oregon Inlet is still closed to people. This has been a psychological and cultural shock to thousands of residents and visitors alike. While there 

are some beaches open for people to use in front of the Villages and other areas of 

the Seashore, the areas listed above are world renowned and are the favorite of all 

users. The closed beaches were the most heavily used under the interim plan. It is 

important to point out that there are very few accesses to the seashore in the National Seashore Recreational Area; closing down these four areas has had a dramatic impact on access. While there are other choices for recreation where there are 

open areas, the closures alter the prime uses of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. 

Question 2. Has the Cape Hatteras area experienced any economic impact as a 

result of the court-approved agreement being implemented? 
61 

Answer. Yes, there has been economic impact from the closures. Statistics are just 

now being complied by Dare County with respect to occupancy and meals tax revenue. In May the motel segment of the lodging industry was down 4.2%, In June 

the motel industry was down 7.6%, campgrounds were down 19.3%, cottages courts 

were down 8.7%. On an individual basis, I will share the records of one very prominent business in Buxton, the Red Drum Tackle Shop. The owner reports the following decline in sales: May—17%, June—35%, July—23% and for the first 13 days 

of August—17%. Many other businesses are reporting the same type of decreases. 

It is important to understand that the motels, campgrounds, and cottage courts are 

lodging businesses that operate on a day of arrival or 24 to 72 hour window for cancellations. In other words, you can cancel your reservations for any reason within 

the cancellation window that your reservation was made under. The visitors who 

use these accommodations were able to react to the closures and cancel their trips 

and receive refunds of their deposits. The rental home industry, on the other hand, 

is one that requires full payment months in advance and the visitors who reserve 

these accommodations have no recourse to a refund should they want to cancel. As 

a result, the rental home visitors had no choice but to honor their reservations despite the closures or lose their money. Dare County is concerned how the closures, 

which this year caught thousands of these rental home visitors off guard, will affect 

next year’s reservations and rentals of these homes. If this group of visitors elects 

not to come to the Seashore because of the beach closures, as the more transient 

visitor did this season, the negative economic impacts will be even more dramatic. 

Question 3. Have you heard from any of your colleagues in the neighboring counties of Hyde, Currituck and Carteret? What impacts have they experienced since the 

court-approved agreement has been in place? 

Answer. We have not heard from anyone in Carteret County. Currituck County 

Commissioners share our concerns and will share data with us as they are able to 

compute results. Hyde County sent the following statement: 

Hyde County supports balanced use of our public lands so that they can 

be enjoyed by residents and guests while supporting natural habitat. That 

balance is critical to sustaining our economy, our culture and the beauty 

of our area. 

Facing the loss of all use of the beaches this spring and summer, Hyde 

County endorsed the ORV beach closure settlement in April 2008. It was 

the right decision at the time but Hyde County needs help returning balance to the jobs/culture-birds/turtles teeter-totter. 

The impact of the settlement was quick and bad for the people of 

Ocracoke who depend upon spring tourism. Shortly after the ORV beach 

closure settlement was signed on April 30, the National Park Service shut 

down parts of the beaches and then fully closed large areas along the north 

and south ends of Ocracoke. Despite normal weather without major storms, 

Hatteras to Ocracoke ferry passenger counts were DOWN over 11% in June 

DOWN 9.4% in July. 

After being named ‘‘Best Beach’’ in May 2007, it would be a logical assumption that all the 2007 positive advertising would cause HatterasOcracoke ferry passenger traffic to be UP in 2008, but that is not the case. 

It is impossible to know the damage of the constant rattle of beaches closure press articles but anecdotal evidence has been seen in numerous 

emails from visitors. 

We have heard reports from environmental groups that more birds and 

turtles nested this summer. That wonderful success may have NOTHING 

to do with the ORV beach closure settlement. Rather, we have enjoyed a 

summer free of most normal storms. Also, Hyde County has been told that 

last winter the National Park Service had an extensive trapping program 

of fox, raccoons and feral cats—all of which enjoy the eggs and hatchlings 

of birds and turtles. We have no data about the extent of the NPS trapping 

program nor its potential impact on the number of birds and turtles. 

Hyde County supports enhancement of our natural resources, strengthening our economy, and maintaining our special culture. We hope that Congress will restore balance to an equation that is now seriously off-kilter by 

adopting a reasonable approach to maintaining public use of Ocracoke 

beaches. 

Question 4. Has there been any increase in beach traffic in other areas since the 

court-approved agreement has been followed? 

Answer. No, we have not experienced any increase in traffic in any other areas 

of the County. The closure areas were the major areas in Dare County for ORV use. 

There are few other choices for this user group. There is a direct correlation in loss 
62 

of business in the northern beach area with the closure of Oregon Inlet. Oregon 

Inlet and Bodie Island Spit are in the National Seashore Recreational Area; this 

area is north of the Inlet and used more by residents and visitors who stay in the 

beach towns, on Roanoke Island or the mainland. 

RESPONSES OF DANIEL N. WENK TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. You testified on the need for further discussions with the Forest Service, which has called for further study of the boundary modification. However, didn’t 

the NEPA-compliant 1998 General Management Plan for the Oregon Caves National Monument already address this issue and come out recommending an expanded boundary? 

Answer. Section 4 of the bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 

the proposed expansion area to the Secretary of the Interior, and to adjust the 

boundary of the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest to exclude the transferred 

land. A comprehensive General Management Plan ((IMP) and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement were completed for Oregon Caves National Monument 

in 1998. The GMP and Record of Decision recommended that 3,410 acres be transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to the National Park Service to protect the Lake 

Creek and upper Cave Creek watersheds, the public water supply, and the foreground and middle ground viewsheds as seen from the Monument. S. 3148 would 

transfer 4,070 acres, including the 3,410 acres that were recommended for addition 

in the GMP and about 650 acres that were not evaluated in the GMP. Further, although the major portion of the expansion proposal, which was developed in compliance with NEPA, has been a part of the Oregon Caves National Monument GMP 

since 1998, no coordinated study or formal dialogue between the Departments has 

taken place in the intervening period. 

Question 2. How much did your NEPA review and preparation of the General 

Management Plan cost? 

Answer. It cost $60,000 to develop the GMP and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Question 3. Is your Management Plan still valid or are you planning on revoking 

it? 

Answer. The 1998 GMP, which recommended a 3,410 acre boundary expansion, 

is valid. 

Question 4. Can you please provide a copy of the General Management Plan EIS, 

as well as any modifications made to it or proposed to be made to it? 

Answer. An electronic copy of the GMP has been provided to the committee and 

Senator Wyden’s office. There have been no amendments to the GMP and none are 

currently planned. 

Question 5. How is your testimony, which appears to be a shift from the 1998 

General Management Plan—which recommends expansion—consistent with the 

Centennial Challenge, which seeks to expand and enhance National Parks, and the 

Park’s own 2007 Centennial Strategy document which lays out a goal of providing 

further education on the plan to expand the boundary? 

Answer. The National Park Service testimony indicates support for the intent of 

S. 3148, consistent with the GMP for the park, but recommends that action be deferred to allow for further interagency consultation. The testimony is also consistent 

with the park’s Centennial Strategy, which encourages educating park partners, the 

US Forest Service, and local communities about the importance of protecting the 

park’s water resources and scenic viewsheds. 

Question 6. How would further study avoid duplicating past process, paperwork 

and expense already undertaken to review the issue of boundary expansion? 

Answer. We do not believe that further study is necessary at this time. However, 

we believe that it would be beneficial to explore ways to maintain continuity and 

interagency coordination on issues related to forest health and recreational opportunities. 

Question 7. My understanding is that every National Park has a fire management 

plan and an officer assigned to it and that the recent fires in California have shown 

that National Park Service lands have responded well in slowing down advancing 

fires because they have been well managed to withstand these fires. Can you detail 

for me what experience the National Park Service has in managing lands for fire 

resiliency? 

Answer. The National Park Service wildland fire management and resource management programs work collaboratively to support NPS Management Policies and 

unit-specific goals and objectives for how wildland fire will be managed. The goal 

of wildland fire management is to restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems 
63 

while protecting life, property and resources from adverse effects of fire. NPS has 

been successful across the nation in managing lands in all sizes of units by applying 

fire and managing unplanned fires on those lands to restore and maintain fireadapted ecosystems. That success has been predicated upon having a fire management plan with clear direction, good science to understand the natural process, supportive management staff, an understanding public, and experienced fire management staff to implement necessary actions. 

Wildland fire is one of nature’s major change forces, similar to floods and winds. 

Fire is a natural part of the landscape in fire-adapted ecosystems. Our ability to 

manage it is dependent upon the condition of the land prior to the event. The NPS 

philosophy is to do active adaptive management to keep the landscape in balance 

so that recovery from disturbance will be part of the natural process and require 

minimal intervention. 

Question 8. What fire and forest restoration activities have been undertaken by 

the Park Service in the Oregon Caves National Monument? 

Answer. The National Park Service has engaged in mechanical methods of 

thinning to reduce fuel loading at Oregon Caves National Monument. Prescribed fire 

has also been used. 

Question 9. What is the precedent regarding hunting on National Monuments? 

Can you identify any policies regarding this issue and whether there are National 

Monuments with hunting allowed? 

Answer. Hunting is permitted only in units of the National Park System where 

it is specifically authorized by federal law. Of the units where sport hunting is authorized, none are designated national parks. Most NPS units where hunting is authorized are designated national preserves, national recreation areas, national seashores/lakeshores, or national rivers. Hunting is only authorized in two national 

monuments managed by NPS: Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument and 

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument (which is jointly managed by NPS 

and BLM). 

Question 10. What experience does the National Park Service have on fencing out 

non-native animals? 

Answer. The National Park Service has extensive experience with fencing out 

non-native animals. For example, fencing is used at Haleakala National Park to exclude feral pigs and goats to allow the restoration of native ecosystems and to protect endangered species. At Pinnacles National Monument, fencing is being used to 

exclude feral pigs, and at Grand Canyon National Park and other western parks, 

fencing is routinely used to exclude domestic cattle and sheep. 

Question 11. Can you please provide a list of other instances where there are Wild 

and Scenic River designations within National Parks or National Monuments? 

Answer. Below please find a list of NPS-managed wild and scenic rivers within 

a designated national park or a designated national monument. In addition to this 

list, the NPS also manages wild and scenic rivers within other types of units of the 

National Park System such as national recreation areas and national scenic 

riverways; NPS also manages some stand-alone wild and scenic rivers, such as the 

Farmington National Wild and Scenic River. 
64 

Question 12. Can you provide me a copy of all the correspondence between the 

National Park Service and the Forest Service regarding the potential contamination 

of the Caves’ drinking water supply from grazing? 

Answer. Electronic copies of the correspondence have been provided to the committee and to Senator Wyden’s office. 

RESPONSES OF DANIEL N. WENK TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

In the absence of a rule for off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras, the National 

Park Service completed a biological assessment, obtained a formal biological opinion 

from US Fish and Wildlife Service, and prepared an interim management strategy 

that addressed threatened and endangered species and allowed for public access. 

Question 13a. During the time in which the interim management strategy was followed, did the National Park Service comply with the terms of the formal biological 

opinion? 

Answer. NPS complied with the ‘‘Reasonable and Prudent Measures’’ and with the 

‘‘Terms and Conditions’’ of the original August 2006 Biological Opinion (BO); however, in 2007 NPS failed to meet performance measures that were established in 

the March 2007 amended BO. (See next answer for details.) 

Question 13b. Did any taking of threatened or endangered species beyond what 

is allowed by the biological opinion occur while the interim management plan was 

in place? 

Answer. The take of a threatened or endangered species did not occur beyond 

what was allowed under the 2006 BO; however, NPS exceeded the incidental take 

allowed under the amended 2007 BO. 

The original August 2006 130 expected that an undeterminable level of incidental 

take of breeding and migrating piping plovers and of all species of sea turtles would 

occur under the interim strategy. The BO also stated that the incidental take would 

be difficult to detect for multiple reasons, including: 1) breeding adults may be 

scared away or prevented from nesting; 2) dead young are easily covered by sand 
65 

or carried away by waves or predators and may not be detected; and, 3) not all nests 

may be detected over the 55 miles of seashore. 

In response to the 2006 BO, NPS developed performance measures, which the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted in an amended 130 in March 2007. Six performance measures were specified: 

1) Number of breeding pairs of piping plover (4 or more); 

2) Number of piping plover nests (3 or more nests or 75% of the total number 

of pairs); 

3) Number of chicks fledged per nest (1 chick per nest); 

4) NPS would develop a systematic monitoring program for wintering piping 

plover; 

5) The ratio of false crawls to sea turtle nests would not exceed 1:1, which 

is the ratio that has been observed on undisturbed beaches; and 

6) The number of sea turtle nests on Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore) would equal or exceed 10 percent of the past five-year average number 

of sea turtle nests in North Carolina. 

In 2007, NPS met performance measures 1, 2, 4, and 5, but failed to meet 3 and 

6. There were 11 piping plover nests, but only 4 chicks fledged (the target was 11). 

The ratio of false crawls to sea turtles nests was 1.39: 1 (114 false crawls to 82 

nests). As a result, NPS initiated and completed re-consultation with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service during the winter of 2007-08. 

Question 13c. How long has the court-approved consent decree been in place? Has 

there been any increase in beach traffic within the park and adjacent areas since 

the consent decree has been followed? 

Answer. The consent decree was approved by the court on April 30, 2008 and 

went into effect immediately. Implementation of the measures in the consent decree 

has resulted in larger and earlier closures at key breeding sites and a reduction in 

the total amount of area open for access compared to 2007. In general, we are seeing 

a redistribution of traffic from closed areas to open areas. However, we do not have 

a good system for counting vehicles on the beach, so we do not know how the numbers compare to years previous to operating under the consent decree. 

Question 13d. How does management of Cape Hatteras differ under the interim 

management plan versus the consent decree? 

Answer. Under the interim strategy, NPS established ‘‘prenesting areas’’ at key 

piping plover breeding sites by April 1 and surveyed 66 miles of ocean, inlet, and 

sound shoreline from March 15—September 15 for bird breeding activity. NPS also 

patrolled over 55 miles of ocean shoreline daily from May 1—September 15 to survey for sea turtle nests and conducted law enforcement patrols of beaches, primarily 

during daylight hours, to enforce beach driving and resource protection requirements. After the prenesting areas were in place, whenever bird breeding behavior 

was observed or chicks had hatched on any Seashore beach, NPS implemented, expanded or modified the resource protection closures based on buffer distances identified in the interim strategy. Resource protection closures were removed when breeding activity concluded. In 2007, NPS staff implemented 389 such management actions (closures, modifications, or closure removals). 

Under the consent decree, NPS must establish the prenesting areas by March 15 

and increase the frequency of monitoring at six key sites to daily through July 15. 

When subsequent bird breeding activity is observed on any Seashore beach, NPS 

implements buffer distances identified in the consent decree, which are larger than 

those identified in the interim strategy. The buffers must he installed around observed breeding activity within 8 daylight hours, and around nests and chicks within 6 daylight hours. The consent decree buffer distances are based on management 

recommendations for the Seashore that were prepared in 2005 by U.S. Geological 

Survey scientists, and are as follows: 

Species Breeding Behavior/Nest (m) Unfledged Chicks (m) 

Piping plover 50 300 pedestrian (1000 ORV) 

Least Tern 100 200 

Other colonial waterbirds 200 200 

American oystercatcher 150 200 

The consent decree also established a new prohibition on night driving from 10 

p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1—November 15 to protect and improve sea turtle nesting, 
66 

except that night driving may be allowed from September 15—November 15 with 

an educational permit. 

Question 13e. How many times did the National Park Service start and stop the 

preparation of an off-road vehicle management rule-making since the requirement 

was imposed by Executive Order in 1972 and what was the basis for stopping each 

time? 

Answer. ORV plans and regulations were attempted but not completed twice each. 

In 1978 NPS prepared a draft interim ORV management plan for the Seashore. The 

planning process apparently stalled at the Regional Office and the plan and environmental compliance were never completed. ORV management was also addressed in 

a 1980 local ‘‘plan’’ (or local policy) for the North District of the Seashore; however, 

it did not meet the planning and NEPA compliance requirements needed in order 

to be considered a formal plan. In 1973 and 1990, the Seashore submitted draft regulations through the NPS Southeast Regional Office to the Washington Office. The 

regulations were not promulgated. It is not clear to us why any of these actions 

were not completed. 

Question 13f. How has the annual visitation for Cape Hatteras changed each year 

in the past 5 years and can you point to any specific factors that contributed to the 

change? How does that compare with visitation across the entire national park system as a whole during the same time? 

Answer. The yearly counts for visitation at Cape Hatteras National Seashore over 

the past 5 years are as follows: 

2007—2.237 million 

2006—2.125 million 

2005—2.261 million 

2004—2.208 million 

2003—2.661 million 

There was a relatively significant drop from 2003-2004 (about 17%), We know 

that there was a lot of storm activity, including Hurricane Isabel in the late summer 

and fall of 2004 that affected visitation that year. We do not know the reasons for 

the numbers changing since then, but it is common to have fluctuations in visitation, and often there are many different factors that contribute to the change. 

Yearly counts for visits to all units of the National Park System are as follows: 

2007—275,581,547 

2006—272,623,980 

2005—273,488,751 

2004—276,908,337 

2003—266,099,641 

A significant factor in the change in total NPS visitation from 2003 to 2004 was 

the opening of the World War [I Memorial, which drew more than 5 million visitors 

in 2004. 

Question 13g. The NPS testimony states: ‘‘Although the breeding season is not yet 

completed, it appears that actions taken under the consent decree have been beneficial for resource protection. Under the consent decree, the Seashore has experienced an increase in the number of breeding pairs of piping plover from 6 pair in 

2006 and 2007, to 11 pairs in 2008. As of July 19, 2008, there were 83 sea turtle 

nests on the Seashore compared to 49 nests last year at this time.’’ The consent decree was approved by the court on April 30, 2008. (i) When did the piping plover 

breeding season begin in 2008 and when does it end? (ii) flow long is the incubation 

period for the piping plover and how many clutches does a nesting pair produce per 

year? (iii) How long from the time of hatching does it take for a piping plover to 

become reproductively viable? (iv) How can you he certain that an increase in piping 

plover breeding pairs is the result of the consent decree when a complete reproductive season has not occurred under the decree; is it possible that more birds than 

usual survived the winter and were available to nest in 2008 for reasons unrelated 

to the consent decree? Please answer the same questions for the sea turtle. 

Answer. Piping plovers are present at the Seashore throughout the entire year 

with breeding typically beginning between mid-March and mid-April. It is difficult 

to determine if birds present on the beach during the spring are breeding birds or 

wintering migrants traveling to breeding grounds further north. In 2008, the Seashore observed its first evidence of breeding, a nest scrape, on April 4 at Cape Point. 

The end of breeding season is variable and dependent upon the nesting and fledgling success of early season nests. Typically, the breeding season ends late August. 

This year the last piping plover chick fledged on July 12, but in 2007 the last chick 

fledged on August 14. The average incubation period for piping plovers is 26 days 

and plovers typically produce one clutch per year if they are successful; however, 
67 

depending on various conditions such as storm events, tidal flooding, and predators, 

plovers may re-nest numerous times until they are successful or the breeding season 

ends. Piping plovers are generally reproductively viable in 1-2 years. 

Sea turtles nest at the Seashore during the summer months with hatchling emergence occurring in the late summer and fall months. Typically nesting begins in 

mid-May and continues until nests hatch by late October. In 2008, the Seashore documented its first sea turtle nest on May 18; as of August 29, the Seashore has had 

112 nests. The incubation period for sea turtle nests is highly dependent upon the 

temperatures of the eggs, which can be affected by daily temperatures, tides, 

storms, humidity, depth of the nest, and placement of the nest on the beach. Incubation periods average 60 days, but can range 48-100 days. Sea turtle species at the 

Seashore typically lay 4-5 clutches each season depending on body condition, environmental factors, and threats. It is generally thought to take about 35 years for 

a sea turtle to become reproductively viable. 

It is possible that this year’s nesting success for piping plovers and sea turtles 

is due to multiple factors, not just the consent decree. Animal populations fluctuate 

as a result of many factors, including genetics, prey availability, suitable and available habitat, environmental conditions, storm events, natural and man-made disturbances, and predators. All of these factors, which can occur during migration, 

breeding, and nesting stages, influence the success of a particular species. Determining a definitive cause-and-effect relationship between nesting success and the 

management requirements under the consent decree would require a comprehensive 

approach to species use of the Seashore and the associated influences affecting 

them, necessitating study over a number of years. 

ON S. 3148

Question 14a. S. 3148 would increase the size of Oregon Caves National Monument by more than 10-fold. What changes in manpower and funding requirements 

does the National Park Service anticipate because of that increase? 

Answer. NPS anticipates it will cost approximately $300,000 to $750,000 per year 

to administer the new lands, including management, administration, interpretation, 

resource protection, and maintenance. The range in this estimate is due to the uncertainties of what actions will be necessary on these lands to meet the ecological 

forest restoration program required by Section 6(b) of the bill. 

Question 14b. How many acres of National Park Service land throughout the US 

include grazing permits and approximately how many AUMs (Animal Unit Months) 

are involved? 

Answer. As of FY 2004, NPS had grazing at 31 units of the National Park System, 

totaling 1,580,000 acres and 71,000 AUMs. 

Question 14c. What are the National Park Service policies for managing grazing 

permits and if S. 3148 is enacted, will the existing grazing management plan remain in place until the permits have been relinquished? 

Answer. NPS policies prohibit grazing except 1) as specifically authorized by statute; or 2) as required by a reservation of use right arising from the acquisition of 

a tract of land; 3) as required in order to maintain a historical scene; or 4) as carried 

out as part of a living exhibit or interpretive demonstration; or 5) as used to achieve 

resource conditions as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) plan. Grazing 

is only allowed where it does not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and 

values. 

Under S. 3148, 1,263 acres of the approximately 24,000 acre grazing allotment 

would be transferred to the National Park Service. The NPS would continue to work 

with the US Forest Service to administer the existing grazing allotment until such 

time as the permit expires or the allotment is retired. 

Question 14d. How much of the land involved in this proposed expansion is in private ownership and have any of the owners objected to this proposal? 

Answer. There is no private land involved in the proposed expansion. 

Question 14e. We have heard Senator Smith and his concern about the Park Service perhaps not maintaining the grazing permit holder’s grazing rights if the permit 

is not bought out. Can you tell me why you think the Park Service is better qualified to manage these permits than say the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land 

Management? 

Answer. Oregon Caves National Monument has worked alongside the Forest Service in its planning and implementation of the Grayback allotment and would continue to do so if this small portion of the allotment were to be transferred to the 

monument. 

Question 14f. The Oregon Cave National Monument is a fairly small Park Service 

unit isn’t that correct? Do you have sufficient budget and personnel to undertake 
68 

the fuels treatments (i.e., logging, thinning, controlled burns) that will need to be 

done to the land your agency would acquire as a result of this bill? 

Answer. Oregon Caves National Monument is relatively small for a unit preserved 

for its natural resources. The park works closely with Forest Service in developing 

and implementing its fire management plan, which has included conducting fuel 

treatment projects and prescribed fire within the existing monument boundary. One 

of the reasons that we request that the committee defer action on S. 3148 is so that 

we can coordinate with the Forest Service to determine how best to accomplish the 

fuels treatment that will be necessary on the lands in question, 

Question 14g. Will hunting be allowed to continue on these lands if they are 

transferred to the Oregon Cave Monument? 

Answer. It is against NPS policies to allow hunting except where specifically authorized by law. One of the reasons we request that the committee defer action on 

this bill is so that we can coordinate with the Forest Service to determine how best 

to continue to provide a wide range of recreational activities to monument and forest 

visitors. 

ON S. 3247

Question 15a. When does the National Park Service anticipate completing the 

suitability and feasibility study for River Raisin Battlefield Park? 

Answer. At this point, we anticipate concluding the study by the summer of 2010. 

The study is being coordinated closely with the national historic landmark (NHL) 

nomination also currently under development. This coordination is necessary in this 

case as criteria for NHL designation is applied in determining whether or not the 

property is nationally significant, the first criterion of a special resource study. This 

means that, to some extent, the study schedule is dependent on the timing of the 

evaluation of the NHL nomination. The soonest that the first level of evaluation for 

the NHL, nomination will occur is the spring of 2009. 

Question 15b. How common is it to designate a new unit of the national park system without first completing a study? 

Answer. It is not very common for Congress to designate a new unit without the 

National Park Service first completing a special resource study. We have found that 

Congress relies heavily on the information provided in a completed study, including 

recommendations for the boundary and any special authorities needed, to help 

shape legislation designating a new unit. The National Park Service considers the 

information gained by a special resource study essential to establishing a sound 

unit, which is why NPS typically asks Congress to defer action on legislation designating a new unit until the study of the site has been completed. 

Question 15c. Has the National Park Service encountered any issues in the course 

of the study that might lead to a negative recommendation for designation? 

Answer. The National Park Service has just begun work on the special resource 

study and does not have sufficient information on any issues to provide either a negative or positive recommendation for designation. 

Question 15d. Has the National Park Service found any compelling reason in the 

course of the study to justify designation before the study is completed? 

Answer. No. Having both a completed special resource study and a NHL nomination would provide information necessary to make an accurate determination on 

whether the site is nationally significant and suitable and feasible to be designated 

as a unit of the National Park System, as well as whether administration by the 

NPS would be the best management option. 

ON S. 1816

Question 16a. How many other instances has Congress authorized a grant program to be administered by the Department of the Interior without a funding ceiling? 

Answer. We are not aware of any grant program administered by the NPS that 

does not have an authorized funding ceiling. 

Question 16b. Has the National Park Service completed a study of the proposed 

‘‘Women’s Suffrage Commemorative Trail’’ and what was the outcome of the study? 

Answer. NPS completed a feasibility study that was transmitted to Congress in 

January 2004. The final report concluded that while there are a large number of 

sites associated with the struggle for women’s suffrage in the Northeast, a trail from 

Massachusetts to Buffalo was not viable. It found a large concentration of sites in 

the corridor from roughly Syracuse to Rochester, New York. Seneca Falls and Waterloo, where the nation’s first women’s rights convention was planned and held in 

1848, lie in the center of this concentration. The study found that a ‘‘Votes for 

Women’’ History Trail, a vehicular tour route connected to Women’s Rights National 
69 

Historical Park, could link sites associated with the struggle for women’s suffrage 

to support the recognition, promotion, and protection of properties connected to 

women’s rights history. 

Question 16c. How many sites would be associated with this trail and how many 

of those are existing units of the national park system? 

Answer. Based on a preliminary assessment, there may be roughly 30-35 sites on 

the trail. Two of the sites, Women’s Rights National Historical Park and Eleanor 

Roosevelt National Historic Site, are NPS units. Many of the sites on the trail would 

be National Register-listed properties or national historic landmarks. Specific criteria would be developed for sites to be considered for inclusion on this trail. 

ON S. 2093

Question 17a. Has any other entity conducted any type of assessment of the rivers 

that could he incorporated into a NPS study? 

Answer. Yes, the State of Vermont has been assessing non-point agricultural runoff issues in the Missisquoi basin and is developing a management plan to address 

those issues in conjunction with local communities and partners, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Missisquoi River Basin Association. NPS has 

met with local and state contacts and are in agreement that this ongoing planning 

and assessment work would be incorporated into the Wild and Scenic River study. 

Question 17b. How many suitability and feasibility studies is the NPS currently 

authorized by Congress to conduct and how many of those are for wild and scenic 

rivers? 

Answer. There are currently 34 studies pending for new units, heritage areas, rivers and trails. Of the 34, three are currently underway for wild and scenic rivers: 

• New River in West Virginia and Virginia 

• Lower Farmington River in Connecticut 

• Taunton River in Massachusetts. 

ON S. 2535

Question 18a. How much land is involved in this boundary adjustment and how 

much of it is in private ownership? 

Answer. There are 261 acres involved in this boundary adjustment. Of this acreage, 198 acres are owned in easement or fee by a non-profit land conservation organization, the Open Space Institute, with another non-profit land conservation agency, Equity Trust, having fee ownership of 101 of those acres. The remaining 63 acres 

are owned by three private owners. 

Question 18b. Have any property owners within the proposed expansion area objected to being included within the boundary? 

Answer. Currently none of the property owners within the proposed expansion 

area object to being included within the boundary. In the original proposed boundary expansion, there were two property owners who indicated that they did not wish 

to be included in the boundary change at this time, so their properties (totaling 70 

acres) were removed from the proposed boundary expansion. 

Question 18c. How will the National Park Service use the property that is proposed for acquisition? 

Answer. The majority of the land, approximately 173 acres, will remain under private ownership and management and will continue to be farmed. Sections of these 

lands that were part of Van Buren’s original farm, and which still retain original 

landscape features from Van Buren’s tenure, will become accessible to visitors which 

will help them to gain a better understanding of Lindenwald. Approximately 25 

acres that would be donated in fee would provide additional options for locating 

operational structures and visitor facilities so they would not impact the cultural 

landscape. 

ON S. 2561

Question 19a. Approximately how many sites would be included in the Cold War 

Theme Study if this bill is enacted? 

Answer. We do not know right now how many sites would be looked at. There 

are thousands of places that have an historical association with the Cold War, but 

only a very few will be of exceptional national significance and have a high degree 

of integrity, two characteristics they would need to qualify for NHL designation. 

Question 19b. Are any of the sites for potential study currently active military 

sites? 
70 

Answer. We do not know if any of the sites are currently active military sites. 

That is something we would determine as we begin to look at the most significant 

Cold War sites. 

Question 19c. What role would DoD have in the proposed theme study? 

Answer. The legislation specifies that consideration should be given to the inventory of sites and resources associated with the Cold War that was done by the Defense Department pursuant to the 1991 legislation which established the DOD Legacy Resource Management Program [Section 8120(b)(9) of Public Law 101-511]. We 

would be drawing from work DOD has already done to identify these resources. In 

addition, the study calls for the Secretary of the Interior to consult with the Secretary of the Air Force on the study. Thus, we would ensure that we had the input 

of Air Force personnel as we frame the study and identify resources. 

Question 19d. Have any prior studies of Cold War sites been conducted and what 

were the findings and recommendations? 

Answer. The Air Force conducted a special resource study of the Minute Man Missile site in South Dakota as part of the Legacy Resource Management Program prior 

to Congress’ designation of the site as a unit of the National Park System in 1999. 

The Air Force also conducted historical studies on a number of other individual facilities, such as flight training centers and communication and command centers. 

However, there has not been a study of the kind proposed by this legislation—a 

study that would look at Cold War resources in a systematic and comprehensive 

manner. 

Question 19e. What is the estimated cost of the proposed study and how long will 

it take to complete? 

Answer. Typically, National Historic Landmark theme studies are estimated to 

cost between $250,000 and $400,000. The proposed study could take 3-5 years to 

complete, depending on the completion of current and pending studies already authorized by the Congress. 

ON S. 3011

Question 20a. What is the existing land area of the Palo Alto Battlefield National 

Historic Site and how much acreage will this bill add? 

Answer. The current acreage of the park is approximately 3,408 acres, of which 

approximately 1,315 acres are federally owned. S. 3011 would add 34 acres. 

Question 20b. How does the National Park Service intend to use the land acquired 

as a result of this legislation? 

Answer. The land would be added to the boundary of the park but may not ever 

be owned by NPS. The Brownsville Community Foundation, which owns the property, has proposed an administrative building for the site. If built, the foundation 

would use part of the building and NPS would use part of this building. If the land 

is acquired by the park, it would be interpreted along with the rest of the park as 

part of the American-Mexican war. 

Question 20c. How much of the proposed expansion area is privately owned and 

have any owners objected to the boundary adjustment? 

Answer. The entire 34 acres are owned by the not-for-profit Brownsville Community Foundation, which wants the land to be included within the park boundary. 

ON S. 3226

Question 21a. What is the estimated cost associated with changing the name of 

this site? 

Answer. The only costs would be those associated with changing the name on 

signs, brochures, and other materials, which would be minimal. 

Question 21b. Do you anticipate any budget increase or change in personnel as 

a result of this name change? 

Answer. No. The costs would be absorbed in existing budgets. There would be no 

impact on personnel. 

ON H.R. 5137

Question 22a. The current authorization for New River Gorge National River says 

hunting may be allowed. Has the National Park Service taken any steps to prevent 

hunting that would cause hunters to be concerned? 

Answer. No. Hunting has been allowed at New River Gorge since the area was 

designated as a unit of the National Park System in 1978. The park’s 1982 GMP 

determined that hunting was an appropriate activity, and since that time, NPS has 

permitted hunting on lands owned and administered by NPS, except in areas of developed recreational facilities for reasons of public safety. 
71 

Question 22b. Is there any reason why hunting should not be allowed in New 

River Gorge National River? 

Answer. No. NPS is cognizant of the importance of hunting to the local community as well as the ecological implications of hunting within New River Gorge. For 

both reasons, hunting has been determined to be appropriate at New River Gorge 

National River. 

Question 22c. What has transpired since the New River Gorge National River was 

established as a park unit that would cause concern for future hunting opportunities? 

Answer. NPS has allowed hunting at New River Gorge since its inception in 1978. 

In 2004, since NPS was about to begin a new GMP for the park, NPS decided to 

include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance related to hunting 

in that document. As part of the NEPA compliance. NPS is considering alternatives 

for hunting within the park. Three of the action alternatives would continue or enhance hunting in the park, and one is a no hunting’’ alternative. NPS has determined that the ‘‘no hunting’’ alternative must be included in the plan in some form 

to ensure that the requirements of NEPA are adequately met. When the draft GMP 

is released for public review, it will include a preferred alternative stating the NPS’ 

position on continued hunting at New River Gorge. 

ON S. 3158

Question 23a. When was the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission 

first authorized and why is this reauthorization necessary? 

Answer. The Commission was first authorized in 1961 when the park was established. The Commission is an important partner to the park, providing information 

on issues related to private land ownership and occupancy, and on management of 

recreational activities. 

Question 23b. How many members are on the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission, how long a term do they serve, and how frequently do they meet? 

Answer. There are 10 members, appointed by the Secretary, who serve for a twoyear term. The Commission meets five to six times a year. 

Question 23c. How many national park units currently have an advisory commission/board and how long do such commissions generally remain in existence once 

formed? 

Answer. There are 20 currently authorized federal advisory commissions for national park units, and several more that are associated with the National Park Service but not a specific park unit. As indicated by the list below, many of have an 

indefinite authorization, while others have a termination date. Some are established 

to provide advice on a range of issues; other for a very specific purpose. Advisory 

commissions established for general purposes for units of the National Park System 

are often authorized by Congress for an initial ten-year period and later extended 

for an additional period of time. 
72 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ADVISORY COMMISSIONS 

Commissions with no termination dates 

Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road Vehicle Advisory Commission Cedar Creek and Belle Grove Nation Historical Park Advisory Commission Committee for the Preservation of the White House Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission Jimmy Carter National Historic Site Advisory Commission National Park of American Samoa Advisory Board Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee NPS Subsistence Resource Commission—Aniakchak National Monument NPS Subsistence Resource Commission—Denali National Park NPS Subsistence Resource Commission—Gates of the Arctic NPS Subsistence Resource Commission—Cape Krusenstern National Monument NPS Subsistence Resource Commission—Kobuk Valley National Park NPS Subsistence Resource Commission—Lake Clark National Park NPS Subsistence Resource Commission—Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory Commission Preservation Technology Training Board Tall Grass Prairie National Preserve Advisory Committee Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee 

Commissions with termination dates Termination date 

Acadia National Park Advisory Commission Sept. 25, 2026.Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council May 21, 2018.Chesapeake and Ohio National Historical Park Commission Jan. 8, 2011.Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council Sept. 21, 2013.Flight 93 Advisory Commission Completion of monument.NPS Concessions Management Advisory Board Dec. 31, 2008.Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail Advisory Council Dec. 14, 2008.Route 66 Corridor Preservation Advisory Committee Aug. 10, 2009.Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Off-Road Vehicle Management 

at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Jan. 2, 2010.
73 

Commissions with expired authorizations/legislation pending to reauthorize Termination date 

Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission Sept. 26, 2008.Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Commission Oct. 31, 2008.Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Advisory Commission Nov. 12, 2006.
74 

1 Case number 2:07-CV-45-BO (U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern Dist. of N.C.). 

2 16 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. 

3 16 U.S.C. §§ 459-459a-10. 

4 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712. 

5 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544. 

6Declaration of Steven Harrison, filed in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, 

et al., ¶ 19 (Jan. 17, 2008). 7Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Cohen, filed in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park 

Service, et al., ¶ 9 (Dec. 12, 2007). Dr. Cohen was the piping plover expert hired by the United 

States Geological Survey to provide proposed management plans for Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. 8 Id. ¶ 14. 9Declaration of Dr. Francesca Cuthbert, filed in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park 

Service, et al., ¶ 8 (Dec. 13, 2007). 10 Id. ¶ 11. 

RESPONSES OF DERB S. CARTER, JR., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

ON S. 3113

Question 1. How was the interim management plan deficient and why was it necessary to develop a court-approved agreement? 

Answer. As more fully explained in the Amended Complaint in the federal lawsuit 

entitled Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. National Park Service et al.,1 the Interim 

Plan failed to meet the National Park Service’s obligation pursuant to Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and 36 C.F.R. § 4.10. These executive orders and the regulation require the National Park Service to adopt a special regulation to manage offroad vehicle use on the Seashore and protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of off-road vehicle use. Further, the Interim Plan violated the National Park 

Service Organic Act ,2 the Cape Hatteras National Seashore enabling legislation,3

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,4 and the Endangered Species Act5 because it failed 

to protect the wildlife of the Seashore. Its primary weaknesses included: 

• Initiating pre-nesting closures on April 1, rather than March 15, increasing the 

level of disturbance for birds seeking to establish territories and court mates. 

• Limiting monitoring for territorial and breeding behavior. The frequency of 

monitoring under the Interim Plan was not sufficient because it allowed significant time periods to pass between observations, ensuring that territorial and 

breeding behavior would not be observed by Park staff and that buffers would 

not be implemented to protect breeding birds. 

• Establishing disturbance buffers that were too small, had no scientific basis, 

and did not meet the minimum recommendations of the USGS scientists. Adequate buffers are vital to bird courtship, breeding, nesting, and chick rearing. 

• Granting substantial discretion to the National Park Service to decrease protections for wildlife. In previous years, Park Service exercise of this discretion has 

consistently favored ORV use over resource protection, putting wildlife in 

harm’s way. As Steve Harrison, former Chief of Resource Management at Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, explained in his sworn declaration, ‘‘during my 

tenure as Chief of Resource Management at the Seashore, protection of birds 

and other natural resources was often compromised by Seashore management 

to accommodate ORV use and ORV user groups.’’6

• Failing to impose any restrictions specifically on night driving, which can disturb nesting sea turtles. 

Because of these deficiencies, and the Interim Plan’s express reliance on previous 

management strategies, it was clear that the wildlife population declines observed 

over the last decade at the Seashore would continue under the Interim Plan. Specifically, experts on the species managed under the Interim Plan stated that: 

• ‘‘[T]he 2007 Interim Plan will not provide for the recovery of the piping plover 

population at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and does not acceptably reduce 

the risk of human-caused injury or mortality to nests or chicks.’’7

• ‘‘Under the 2007 Interim Plan, there is a risk that there will not be a viable 

piping plover population in place when the long-term ORV management plan 

is enacted.’’8

• ‘‘[T]he 2007 Interim Plan is inadequate in its ability to provide the type of protection required by piping plovers and colonial ground nesting waterbirds at 

CAHA.’’9

• ‘‘Without adoption of management at the highest level of protection it is likely 

that piping plovers and the other shoreline inhabiting waterbird species will not 

continue to breed at Cape Hatteras for much longer in the future.’’10
75 

11Declaration of Scott Melvin, filed in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, 

et al., ¶ 18 (Jan. 8, 2008). 12 Id. ¶ 22. 13Declaration of Dr. Erica Nol, filed in Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. National Park Service, 

et al., ¶ 19 (Dec. 18, 2007). 14 Irene Nolan, New dispatches from the beachfront: Access update, getting smart about beach 

driving, manners and laws, and July 4 report, ISLAND FREE PRESS, http:// 

www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/07.11.2008- 

ShootingTheBreezeNewDispatchesFromTheBeachfront.html. 15 Id. 16 Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for an 

Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (ORV Management Plan) for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC, 71 Fed. Reg. 71552 (Dec. 11, 2006) 

• ‘‘[T]he 2007 Interim Plan is inadequate for protecting Piping Plovers and their 

eggs and chicks from disturbance or direct mortality caused by recreational activities, especially ORVs.’’11

• ‘‘Failure to implement more effective protection, beginning with the 2008 breeding season, will continue to impede progress toward recovery of this local population, and will not reduce the current risk that breeding Piping Plovers will 

be extirpated from the Seashore.’’12

• ‘‘If current management practices continue for the next two to three years, piping plovers will most likely disappear as a breeding species from Cape Hatteras 

entirely and the populations of colonially nesting waterbirds and American 

oystercatchers will be drastically reduced if not also eliminated.’’13

It was necessary to develop the Consent Decree to address these shortcomings of 

the Interim Plan, to prevent the loss of additional native species from the Seashore 

before a final ORV management plan is approved, and to ensure that a final management plan is adopted by creating an enforceable timetable for its development. 

In 2007, both gull-billed terns and black skimmers failed to nest on the Seashore 

beaches. The scientific evidence available indicated that several other species risked 

being eliminated from the Seashore under the Interim Plan. The Consent Decree 

corrects these faults by using a scientifically supported foundation for the protection 

of species. The extensive input from Dare County, Hyde County, and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance in crafting the Consent Decree ensured that, 

even with this scientific basis, the Consent Decree appropriately considers all uses 

of the Seashore and accommodates those uses. 

Question 2. Cape Hatteras National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle Use (S.3113): Has 

there been any increase in beach traffic in other areas of the park or adjacent beaches since the court-approved agreement has been followed? 

Answer. The National Park Service is in the best position to answer this question. 

We understand that the Park Service is keeping track of the numbers of visitors 

to Cape Hatteras National Seashore generally as well as the number of ORVs driving on its beaches at certain locations, but we are not aware of any place that it 

has regularly published either those numbers or a breakdown of how many vehicles 

are using each section of beach. There has been little to no decrease in the numbers 

of ORVs using the beaches in general, and that there has been at least an occasional increase in the total number of vehicles on the Seashore.14 As we previously 

testified, the Park Service reported that 2,557 vehicles were on Seashore beaches 

on the July 4th, 2008, holiday,15 whereas the busiest holiday weekends in previous 

years reportedly approached only 2,200 vehicles.16

The noteworthy fact regarding the location of beach driving is that beach driving 

has been managed in such a way as to keep ORVs away from areas only as long 

as necessary to ensure the success of wildlife breeding by allowing safe courting, 

breeding, nesting, hatching, and fledging. 

Question 3. Is your organization concerned about threatened and endangered species in other public beaches in the Outer Banks? Are you aware of any plans for 

additional legal action? 

Answer. National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, 

and the Southern Environmental Law Center are all concerned about the welfare 

of threatened and endangered species wherever they may live and breed. We are 

aware that populations of threatened and endangered species, including many of the 

same species as those that live on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, live elsewhere 

in North Carolina’s Outer Banks, including on Cape Lookout National Seashore. We 

have focused our attention on those populations living in Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore because those populations were suffering the greatest declines and because, according to the government’s own scientists and the applicable federal laws, 

there was an obvious mechanism for the Park to protect the species and reverse the 

declines. That mechanism has been memorialized in the Consent Decree. 
76 

17Press Release, National Parks Conservation Association, Conservation Groups Settle Lawsuit with National Park Service, Protection National Parks from Illegal Off-Road Vehicle Use 

(May 22, 2008) available at http://www.npca.org/medialcenter/presslreleases/2008/ 

orvl052208.html. 18 Notice of Settlement, filed in Friends of the Earth, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, et 

al., (May 01, 2008); Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment, filed in Friends of the Earth, et al. 

v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, et al., (May 23, 2008). 19 Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 

108, 136-37 (D.D.C. 2004). See Federal Defendants’ Second Status Report on Progress on Remand, filed Dec. 20, 2007. 20The minutes of the May 19, 2008 Dare County Board of Commissioners’ meeting state that 

Warren Judge commented that the county ‘‘will have to revisit the issue in court.’’ The Dare 

County Board of Commissioners’ Minutes: May 19, 2008, available at http://www.co.dare.nc.us/ 

BOC/Minutes/2008/OM051908.pdf. 21http://www.ncbba.org/legalfund.html (stating, ‘‘The North Carolina Beach Buggy Association 

needs help now, more than ever, to fund the legal battles we are facing now and will face in 

the immediate future. We are committed to free and open access to the beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.’’); http://capehatterasapa.org/forum/forum—topics.asp?FID=8 (showing Cape Hatteras Preservation Alliance’s ongoing efforts to raise legal 

funds, and stating, ‘‘There are several pro-active projects that CHAPA is working on and I will 

share more with you, when they are ready for announcement, but these things take funds to 

be able to do.’’); http://www.capehatterasanglersclub.org/index.php?option=com— 

content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=46 (stating, ‘‘The purpose of [the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance] is to provide a venue through which OBPA can join with other like-minded 

user groups to preserve and defend through negotiation or litigation against any effort by any 

person, group, organization, or government agency to ban or restrict vehicular or other access 

to the beaches (ocean and sound side) of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.’’) 22Press Release, Outer Banks Group, National Park Service, NPS Announces First Major Closures under the Consent Decree (May 5, 2008). 

Regarding other litigation, we aware of a lawsuit entitled Friends of the Earth 

et al. v. United States Department of the Interior, case number 05 CV 2302 (RCL),17

which was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2005. 

The groups that I represent were not party to that lawsuit. Dare County, Hyde 

County, and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance were, however, intervenors in that lawsuit, in much the same posture as in the case involving Cape Hatteras. That case involved the National Park Service’s duty to manage off-road driving at other national parks and seashores, including Cape Lookout. We understand 

that a settlement has been reached in that case. We also understand that Dare 

County, Hyde County, and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, represented by some of the same lawyers as in the Cape Hatteras case, informed the 

court that they did not object to that settlement.18

Regarding future litigation, we have no current plans to initiate litigation regarding protection of endangered and threatened species from ORVs in other areas of 

the Outer Banks. We are aware, however, that the District of Columbia federal district court has retained jurisdiction over litigation initiated by Dare County, Hyde 

County, and the Cape Hatteras Preservation Alliance, through which they challenged the designation of critical habitat for wintering piping plovers on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, requiring status updates from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.19 Warren Judge, Chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, 

has indicated that the county may challenge the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent 

re-designation of critical habitat.20 We are also aware that ORV interest groups 

have indicated an ongoing commitment to using litigation as a means to address 

their dissatisfaction with beach driving limits at Cape Hatteras.21

Question 4. In your testimony you state: ‘‘By the last week in July, piping plovers 

had increased from 6 breeding pairs in 2007 to 11 pairs in 2008, an 83% increase 

for this threatened species. Fledged piping plover chicks nearly doubled from 4 to 

7 during the same period, the highest number of fledged piping plover chicks on the 

Seashore since 1998.’’ The consent decree was approved by the court on April 30, 

2008. (i) When did the piping plover breeding season begin in 2008 and when does 

it end? (ii) How long is the incubation period for the piping plover and how many 

clutches does a nesting pair produce per year? (iii) How long from the time of hatching does it take for a piping plover to become reproductively viable? (iv) How can 

you be certain that an increase in piping plovers is the result of the consent decree 

when a complete reproductive season has not occurred under the decree; is it possible that more birds than usual survived the winter and were available to nest in 

2008 for reasons unrelated to the consent decree? 

Answer. (i) It is difficult to definitively state when the piping plover season began 

and ended. The first documented closure for breeding piping plovers, other than prenesting closures, was announced on May 5.22 The last piping plover chick fledged 
77 

23OUTER BANKS GROUP, CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY; JULY 17 TO JULY 23, 2008 (BODIE ISLAND, HATTERAS, AND OCRACOKE DISTRICTS) at 1 (2008). 24 Id. 25 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROTOCOLS FOR 

THE THREATENED PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) ON CAPE HATTERAS 

NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA 4 (2005). 26 Id. 4. 27 Id. 28 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) ATLANTIC COAST POPULATION REVISED RECOVERY PLAN 5 (1996). 

on July 15.23 The last remaining nest failed on July 20, 2008.24 This span approximates the generally accepted breeding season for piping plovers, which typically begins in March and runs through mid-August.25

(ii) Piping plover incubation ranges from 25-29 days.26 A pair may re-nest multiple times if previous clutches are destroyed, but rarely do so after chicks hatch.27

(iii) Piping plovers have been known to breed as young as one year of age, but 

the frequency at which they do so is unknown.28

(iv) A range of factors can influence breeding success including habitat availability, weather conditions, predation, and human disturbance. At the Seashore, the 

National Park Service is implementing management strategies to address predators 

and human disturbance. While there is no way to be sure that the Consent Decree 

is the sole reason for this year’s breeding success for piping plovers, the success of 

piping plovers, American oystercatchers, sea turtles, and other species is not unexpected. The Consent Decree is based primarily on the ‘‘moderate protection’’ protocols created by USGS scientists and recommended to the National Park Service. 

Those scientists predicted that implementing the ‘‘moderate protection’’ protocols 

would decrease the disturbance of target species on the Seashore. While it is too 

early to make a final judgment on the effectiveness of the Consent Decree, that decreased disturbance may be responsible for the improved results from this year’s 

breeding season. 

Survival rates of wintering plovers could affect the number of breeding pairs of 

piping plovers on the Seashore, but we are not aware of any evidence demonstrating 

that the survival rate of wintering birds leading into this breeding season was higher than normal. Further, if winter survival is responsible for the 83% increase in 

breeding pairs of piping plovers on Cape Hatteras Seashore, one would expect to see 

similar increases in the southern population of piping plovers at other locations. 

However, based on preliminary monitoring, the number of breeding pairs at nearby 

Cape Lookout National Seashore merely remained essentially the same, with 45 

breeding pairs in 2007 and approximately 45-46 breeding pairs in 2008. 

RESPONSES OF JOEL HOLTROP TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN, ON S. 3148 

Question 1. The Park Service has been proposing expanding the boundary of the 

Oregon Caves Monument since the 1930’s, and, as you noted in your testimony, the 

original withdrawal proposal envisioned a larger Monument, but in the Forest Service testimony isn’t this Administration reversing decades of policy by its unprecedented criticism of efforts to create an expanded boundary for the Oregon Caves 

monument? 

Answer. The Presidential Proclamation (No. 876, July 12, 1909) designating the 

Oregon Caves National Monument identified an area of approximately 480 acres of 

the Siskiyou National Forest to be managed as a national monument. This area was 

managed initially by the Forest Service and since 1933; it has been managed by the 

National Park Service. Since 1933, the Forest Service has worked closely with the 

National Park Service to ensure that management of the surrounding national forest lands is compatible with management objectives for the monument. Watershed 

protection, enhanced recreation opportunities, fire suppression and hazardous fuels 

management are some of the more important areas in which we have mutual interests with the National Park Service. 

In 1985, the National Park Service inquired about the possibility of transferring 

the management and operations responsibilities for the Oregon Caves National 

Monument to the Siskiyou National Forest. At that time, a joint team of both agencies addressed the issues. Following those discussions, the National Park Service reorganized to have the Oregon Caves National Monument manager report to the 

manager at Crater Lake National Park. 

Forest Service staff provided comments on the draft environmental impact statement associated with 1998 Oregon Caves Management Plan that recommended en-
78 

* Exhibits 1–5 have been retained in subcommittee files. 

larging the monument. At that time, staffs from both agencies exchanged correspondence and consulted on a number of topics related to the monument plan and 

mutual objectives for managing the monument and the surrounding national forest. 

The Forest Service continues to be cooperative with and supportive of the Superintendent and staff at the Oregon Caves National Monument. The recent Forest 

Service testimony is aligned with a longstanding policy of intergovernmental cooperation, including the agreement and conservation policy established January 31, 

1963, between the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Interior (DOI). 

Question 2. The Forest Service was provided an opportunity to comment and did 

in fact provide comments to the 1999 General Management Plan. I have reviewed 

some of the correspondence submitted providing those comments and notes of actions the National Park Service undertook to be responsive to those comments. Why 

doesn’t that constitute adequate interagency consultation? 

Answer. The planning process for the Monument’s General Management Plan was 

conducted by the National Park Service. During that process, the Forest Service and 

the National Park Service staffs discussed a number of topics related to the proposed management plan. The topic of changing lands status to enlarge the monument did not evolve to the point where the agencies conducted a joint study with 

public participation to fully consider of the feasibility of transferring lands from the 

Forest Service to the Park Service administration. To date, there has been no joint 

study of this proposal employing a process as envisioned and directed by the 1963 

agreement between the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. If a change to 

land status is to be considered, joint studies, fully open to public participation are 

the rule since the 1963 agreement. Longstanding direction has been for mutual support and cooperation in management of lands under each jurisdiction. The Forest 

Service is committed to cooperative and mutually supportive management across jurisdictions. 

Question 3. Can you provide a complete file of all comments the Forest Service 

submitted to the National Park Service for the 1998 General Management Plan? 

Answer. The Forest Service comments on the draft environmental impact statement related to the Oregon Caves National Monument General Management Plan 

are attached in Exhibit 1.* 

Question 4. Can you provide a complete file of all comments the Forest Service 

submitted to the National Park Service regarding transfer of land to the National 

Park Service? 

Answer. The Forest Service comments regarding proposed boundary changes to 

the Monument are included in the attached Forest Service comments on the draft 

environmental impact statement related to the Oregon Caves National Monument 

General Management Plan. See Exhibit 1. 

Question 5. Can you provide further explanation and documentation on the agency 

policy the Forest Service testimony cites regarding unilateral agency proposals? 

Answer. The nearly half-century policy of USDA and DOI to avoid unilateral proposals to change the status of lands dates back to a joint USDA and DOI letter on 

‘‘Jurisdictional Responsibilities in Managing Public Recreational Areas’’ sent to and 

endorsed by the President on January of 1963. See Exhibit 2. 

Agencies may have different resource and recreation management objectives that 

lead them to emphasize different types of public recreation or adapt different techniques for resource protection. When one agency develops a management plan solely 

around its objectives, its management activities can disrupt patterns of legitimate 

recreational use, create additional management expenses, and even put certain resources at risk by affecting patterns of human use or natural processes. The USDA 

and DOI have long adhered to the 1963 agreement to ensure that neither inadvertently interferes with the other’s mission and objectives for protecting natural resources and providing a wide range of recreational opportunities and public uses of 

federal lands. 

Question 6. Over the years, I have heard a number of examples where there has 

been less than stellar interagency coordination and agreement on protecting the 

monument resources. There are a number of examples I have heard, including the 

Forest Service clear cutting right up to the Monument boundary—in the late 1980s 

a road collapse associated with a culvert in a clear-cut in the Lake Creek watershed 

caused the National Park Service to shut down the public water supply because the 

turbidity was so high that they couldn’t treat it. 

And it appears there has been a long history of National Park Service concern 

about grazing and in response the Forest Service increased the grazing. The Forest 
79 

Service even closed the gate on the park to block access to the forest because of the 

controversial Sugarloaf timber sale. 

These examples seem to illustrate a failure of cooperation and protection of the 

Monument’s resources. Can you detail and provide evidence of any special measures 

the US Forest Service has undertaken to further protect the natural resources and 

water supply of the Oregon Caves National Monument? 

Answer. Forest Service personnel have worked closely with the Oregon Caves National Monument staff on a wide variety of natural resource and administrative 

issues over the years and coordinated on activities that have been of mutual interest 

to the public, the Forest Service and the National Park Service. 

There is a Memorandum of Understanding for Fire Suppression and Mutual Aid: 

The Forest Service will aggressively respond to wildfire threats with coordinated 

suppression activities on the Monument. The local Forest Service District initial attack forces include two suppression engines, an 18 person helitack crew, and a type 

2 helicopter. As needed, air tankers, smokejumpers, and additional fire resources 

are made available including foam capability for structure protection. This is especially important due to significant risks associated with only one access route to the 

Monument and a high loading of hazardous fuels in this area due to lower than natural fire recurrence. 

The Wild Rivers Ranger District stores the Park Service fire suppression engine 

in a covered facility and maintains the Park Service suppression engine at no expense during the off-season. 

In support of the Oregon Caves administrative needs, the Forest Service has permitted the building of communications equipment and facilities on national forest 

lands to facilitate the operation of the Oregon Caves Monument. During the past 

year, the Forest Service has provided the Monument employees unlimited access to 

the facilities at the Wild Rivers District Compound to facilitate phone and communication services during a time when the Monument experienced a failure in phone 

and computer services. Office space, computer access, and phone service was willingly provided for eight months without any fees being charged. 

No clear cutting has occurred in the vicinity of the Monument boundary since the 

mid 1980’s and none are planned. In regards to the ‘‘late 1980’s road collapse associated with a culvert in a clear-cut in the Lake Creek watershed,’’ there was a culvert 

failure and subsequent road fill slope failure on Forest Service Road 070 in 1997 

when severe winter storms caused widespread flooding in Southwest Oregon. This 

culvert failure was not associated with a clear-cut, but was, however, directly below 

a high elevation natural meadow. In response to this culvert failure, the Forest 

Service closed and decommissioned a portion of this road which is located just outside the Monument’s present boundary to prevent further risk of road failure and 

subsequent sedimentation. It should be noted that this action was consistent with 

the specific action described in the Oregon Caves National Monument General Management Plan (August 1999, page 20, action item 15). 

The National Park Service and the Forest Service have had concerns about grazing in the Lake Creek watershed above the Monument’s water intake. For a variety 

of natural resource related reasons, the Forest Service has reduced the number of 

permitted cattle in the Big Grayback Allotment from 200 head in 1937 to 70 permitted head of cattle in 2008. The new Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan 

that will be implemented in 2009 calls for 56 permitted head of cattle for the allotment. 

The current staff on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is not aware of the 

specific details regarding the gate closure on the Monument to prevent access to the 

Sugarloaf Timber Sale area. However, coordination with the Monument staff to 

close this gate to maintain public safety in response to timber sale protest activity 

would have been consistent with Forest Service public safety policies in place at 

that time. 

The Forest Service manages the lands surrounding the Oregon Caves National 

Monument to meet or exceed Oregon surface water standards. The Forest Service 

has undertaken and will continue to undertake a variety of special measures to further protect the natural resources and water supply of the Oregon Caves National 

Monument. Current special measures include protecting the Oregon Caves National 

Monument public water supply by excluding a 150 foot radius around the water intake from livestock grazing, reducing the numbers of permitted livestock use from 

70 head to 56 head, reducing the livestock forage utilization levels in areas adjacent 

to the Oregon Caves National Monument (Bigelow Lakes Area), and authorizing the 

construction of a fence to prevent livestock from reaching the Bigelow Lakes area. 

These specific actions are fully described in the Environmental Assessment for the 

Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan (October 2007) and the Decision Notice 

and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Big Grayback Allotment Management 
80 

Plan (February 2008), and will be implemented as soon as a final decision is made 

pending resolution of an appeal by the permit holder. These documents can be 

accessed at the following internet site: www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/planning/big-grayback-ea.shtml. 

In addition, the Forest Service will continue to maintain the closure of Forest 

Service Road 070 consistent with the Oregon Caves National Monument General 

Management Plan (August 1999). 

Question 7. Can you provide me a copy of all the correspondence between the National Park Service and the Forest Service regarding the potential contamination of 

the Caves’ drinking water supply from grazing? 

Answer. Enclosed in Exhibit 3 is official correspondence between the National 

Park Service and the Forest Service regarding the potential contamination of the 

Oregon Caves National Monument drinking water supply from grazing. The Forest 

Service manages the watershed to meet in-stream state water quality standards. 

The Monument has obtained permits from the State of Oregon granting approval 

for appropriation of surface water through construction of the diversion on Lake 

Creek for purposes of ‘‘domestic, hotel, and fire protection’’ and is responsible for 

treating the water to state drinking water standards. 

Question 8. Can you please provide notices of violations issued on the Big 

Grayback Allotment? 

Answer. Attached are notices of violations and related documents correspondence 

on the Big Grayback Allotment. Please see Exhibit 4. 

Question 9. Can you please provide the Resource Management Plan direction on 

grazing in Research Natural Areas and Botanical Areas in the Big Grayback Allotment 

Answer. The Big Grayback allotment on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

encompasses portions of the former Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. 

Prior to consolidation, both the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest completed 

their respective Land and Resource Management Plans. These plans provide the following direction for range management in Research Natural Areas and Botanical 

Areas: 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for Range Management in Research Natural Areas 

There are no Research Natural Areas within that portion of the Big Grayback 

Allotment located on the former Siskiyou National Forest. 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for Range Management in Botanical Areas 

1. Livestock grazing shall be prohibited in Botanical Areas, except where such 

use is part of an existing allotment. Bigelow Lakes is the only recommended 

Botanical Area with an existing grazing allotment (Big Grayback Allotment, administered by the Applegate Ranger District of the Rogue River National Forest.) Cattle shall be prevented from reaching the Lakes area by a drift fence. 

The effects of grazing in the Bigelow Lakes basin shall be monitored and corrective action taken as necessary. 

Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for Range 

Management in Research Natural Areas 

1. Grazing may be allowed when the Director of the Forest and Range Experiment Station authorizes such a management practice as essential to maintain 

a specific vegetation type. 

2. Where Research Natural Areas are located adjacent to or within grazing 

allotments, the boundaries will be marked and physical barriers constructed 

around the area to prohibit livestock entry, if needed. 

3. Write range allotment plans to reflect management direction for all lands 

within the allotment boundary. Allotment planning procedures are documented 

in FSM 2210. 

4. Develop Coordinated Resource Management Plans where possible and feasible to facilitate integrated resource management of range arid other resources, 

and between agencies, permittees and offer other landowners. 

Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Direction for Range 

Management in Botanical Areas 

1. Livestock grazing will be controlled in order to benefit or maintain the botanical resource. This control can range from limited or no livestock grazing to 

seasonal adjustments to benefit target species. Forage utilization standards will 

be based on this direction. 
81 

2. Range improvements and vegetative manipulation will not be permitted 

unless they will benefit the botanical resource. No exotic species will be seeded 

or placed in botanical areas. 

3. Provide fences and stock control devices when necessary to protect resource. 

4. Provide annual permittee plans for livestock distribution and use patterns 

which reflect management direction. 

5. Write range allotment plans to reflect management direction for all lands 

within the allotment boundary. Allotment planning procedures are documented 

in FSM 2210. 

6. Develop Coordinated Resource Management Plans where possible and feasible to facilitate integrated resource management of range and other resources, 

and between agencies, permittees and other landowners. 

All current grazing management on the Big Grayback Allotment conforms to this 

Land and Resource Management Plan direction. New grazing management as described in the Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update will also 

conform to this Land and Resource Management Plan direction. 

Question 10. Forest Service testimony cites concerns about fuel management and 

forest restoration, but my bill specifically includes language providing for forest 

management and the recent fires have illustrated the Park Service’s capabilities in 

managing for fire. What are the specific concerns about the National Park Service’s 

ability to perform fuel treatments and forest restoration? 

Answer. The forest restoration and fuel treatment activities referenced in the Forest Service testimony that are planned for the 4,070 acres identified in S. 3148 are 

the result of a well-coordinated, multiyear planning effort involving local communities, governments, and interest groups as well as interagency coordination. As a 

result of these investments in planning and public involvement, the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest is now positioned to implement work that will achieve the 

forest restoration aims of S. 3148 as described in Section 6(b). 

We fully support the need to conduct ecological forest restoration activities within 

the 4,070 acres identified in S. 3148 and believe that these fuel treatment and forest 

restoration activities can move forward in the most expedient fashion if these lands 

are maintained within the National Forest System. The longstanding involvement 

and familiarity of Forest Service personnel working on the forest and within the Pacific Northwest Region will ensure that the recreational values associated with these 

lands are provided for and ecological forest restoration goals are achieved in an efficient and effective manner. 

Question 11. You discussed in your testimony that you have planned restoration 

and fuels reduction projects. Can you tell us what the priority of those thinning 

projects in the Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest is, what percentage of those 

projects has been completed and whether all funding has been secured to complete 

those projects? 

Answer. The Forest Service has placed the highest priority on the restoration and 

fuels reduction projects planned for this area because they are within the wildland 

urban interface (WUI) and adjacent to the Oregon Caves National Monument. They 

are the highest priority for treatment on the Wild Rivers Ranger District as evidenced by the completion of NEPA planning efforts and ongoing implementation. 

Approximately 142 acres have already been implemented. An additional 236 acres 

have NEPA planning completed with expectations of field implementation within 

the next five years (funding dependent); and 1550 more acres are planned for NEPA 

and field implementation over the next five or more years. These projects are 

thinning in lands clear-cut over 30 years ago. These are stewardship projects, and 

the proceeds will help fund additional fuel reduction efforts. 

Question 12. Can you identify where significant amount of hunting occurs with 

in the lands proposed for transfer to the National Park Service? 

Answer. The proposed expansion area is a favorite location for many local hunters 

and is traditionally used as a primary hunting opportunity for black-tailed deer and 

black bear. Hunting is generally dispersed throughout the proposed expansion area 

with concentrated use occurring along open ridge tops, meadows, and other unique 

wildlife habitat features. In addition, hunting is also concentrated in areas that are 

accessible by hiking along trails and roadways that are no longer open to motorized 

vehicles. 

Question 13. Could you produce a map delineating these principal areas where 

hunting is more concentrated and where users would be most impacted? 

Answer. Yes, the Forest Service can provide a fairly accurate map of these features, as indicators of areas where hunting would likely be more concentrated using 
82 

our GIS capabilities together with aerial photographs, and local expertise within 7- 

10 days of a request. 

Question 14 Is the 1907 withdrawal of Monument lands still in effect? Can you 

please provide a copy of the withdrawal document with a citation of where to locate 

it? Can you provide a map indicating the extent of the withdrawal? 

Answer. The Monument was withdrawn in 1907 by Secretarial Order, and then 

by Presidential Proclamation 876 of July 12, 1909, under the authority of the Antiquities Act. A copy of the proclamation and associated plat is in the attached Exhibit 

5. 

A ‘‘buffer’’ was withdrawn on 12/3/1963 by administrative withdrawal, which is 

still in effect (based on the Master Title Plat). It can be found on Public Land Order 

3286, which gives a Federal Register citation of 28 FR 13308 (which was corrected 

by 29 FR 3010) Link to the Master Title Plat: http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/or/ 

400s060wm01.pdf. 

Link to the Historical Index lists all land actions by the Federal Government for 

Township 40 South, Range 6 West, containing the Monument: http://www.blm.gov/ 

or/landrecords/or/400s060whwd.pdf. 

RESPONSES OF JOEL HOLTROP TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

Question 15. How much of the expansion area is currently covered by grazing permits, how many permit-holders are involved, and how many AUMs are involved? 

Answer. The proposed expansion area would include approximately 1,263 acres of 

the Big Grayback Allotment that is currently under a grazing permit. There is one 

permit holder and the current permitted cattle use on the Big Grayback Allotment 

is 70 head between June 1 and September 30 for a total of 280 animal use months 

(AUMs) authorized for the entire Big Grayback Allotment. The new Big Grayback 

Allotment Management Plan that will be implemented in 2009 calls for 56 permitted head of cattle for the allotment. 

Question 16. How do the procedures for managing grazing on US Forest Service 

land differ from the procedures on National Park Service land? 

Answer. Pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief 

of the Forest Service is authorized to develop, administer, and protect range resources, and permit and regulate grazing use of all kinds and classes of livestock 

on all National Forest System (NFS) lands and on other lands under Forest Service 

control. This authority extends to the national forests, national grasslands, and 

other lands administered by the Forest Service through lease, agreement, waiver or 

otherwise. 

We defer to the Department of the Interior to provide specifics, but it is our understanding that National Park Service policies prohibit grazing except 1) as specifically authorized by statute; or 2) as required by a reservation of use right arising 

from the acquisition of a tract of land; or 3) as required in order to maintain a historical scene; or 4) as carried out as part of a living exhibit or interpretive demonstration; or 5) used to achieve resource conditions as part of a management plan. 

Grazing is only allowed where it does not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values. 

The following information details the Statutory Authorities, Regulatory Authorities, Secretary of Agriculture Administrative Orders, Forest Service Policy for Range 

Management on National Forest System Lands AND Forest Service Objectives for 

Range Management on National Forest System Lands. 

AUTHORITIES

Statutory Authorities 

Authority to protect, manage, and administer the National Forest System, and 

other lands under Forest Service administration for range management purposes, 

emanates from the following acts: 

1. Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (Ch. 2, 30 Stat. 34, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 551). 

2. Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, Title III, of July 22, 1937, Sections 31- 

33 (Ch. 517, 50 Stat. 525, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012). 

3. Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950, Sections 1,5, 7. 11, 12, 18, 19, (Ch. 

97, 64 Stat. 82; 16 U.S.C. 571c; 16 U.S.C. 572; 16 U.S.C. 580d; 16 U.S.C. 580g; 

580h; 16 U.S.C. 580k; 16 U.S.C. 580). 

4. Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 

215, 16 U.S.C. 528-531). 

5. Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, Section 4 (P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890; 

16 U.S.C. 1133). 
83 

6. National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970 (P.L. 91-190, 83 

Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 (note), 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4347). 

7. Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act of December 15, 1971 (P.L. 92-195, 

85 Stat. 649, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1331-1340). 

8. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 

1974 (P.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 476, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1601 (note), 1600-1614). 

9. National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976 (P.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 

2949, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 472a, 476, 500, 513-516, 518, 521b, 528 (note), 

576b, 594-2 (note), 1600 (note), 1601 (note), 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614). 

10. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, Sections 

206, 310, 401, 402, 403, 404, (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 

1716; 43 U.S.C. 1740; 43 U.S.C. 1751; 43 U.S.C. 1752; 43 U.S.C. 1753). 

11. Public Rangelands Improvement Act of October 25, 1978 (92 Stat. 1803, 

43 U.S.C. 1752-1753, 1901-1908). 

Regulatory Authorities 

Regulations relating to the range program which confer authority to the Chief 

Forest Service are: 

1. Grazing and Livestock Use on the National Forest System, 36 CFR Part 

222, Subpart A. 

2. Management of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros, 36 CFR Part 222, 

Subpart B. 

3. Grazing Fees, 36 CFR Part 222, Subpart C. 

4. Administration of Lands Under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act by the Forest Service 36 CFR 213. 

5. General Prohibition, 36 CFR 261, Subpart A. 

6. Administrative Review Procedures, 36 CFR 251.80, Subpart C. 

7. Wilderness-Primitive Areas, 36 CFR 292.7. 

Secretary of Agriculture Administrative Orders 

The Secretary of Agriculture sets forth responsibilities mandated by statutory authority through Departmental regulations and memorandums. Policy relating to 

range resources and coordination of range activities of the USDA agencies and other 

executive agencies, organizations, and individuals is included in the following: 

1. Secretary’s Administrative Order of August 1963, Administration of Lands 

Under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act; Establishment of National Grasslands. 

2. Departmental Regulation, Number 9500-5, dated April 21, 1988; Subject: 

Policy on Range. 

POLICY

National Forest System 

Basic policies for range management on National Forests and National Grasslands are to: 

1. Use appropriate methods, such as grazing use by livestock or wild 

ungulates, prescribed fire, and mechanical or chemical treatments, for managing range vegetation. 

2. Identify and inventory range resource values, including riparian, upland, 

and other critical areas to determine which areas meet or do not meet Forest 

land and resource management plan objectives. 

3. Implement and monitor measures to restore and enhance plant diversity 

and productivity, water quality, and soil stability. 

4. Enhance or maintain the habitat of threatened, endangered or sensitive 

species of plants and animals. 

5. Determine suitability and potential capability for producing forage for grazing and browsing animals and for maintaining and enhancing habitat for fish 

and wildlife Management Indicator Species. 

6. Consistent with Forest land and resource management plans, make forage 

available to qualified livestock operators from lands that are suitable for livestock grazing. 

7. Issue term permits, generally for ten-year periods with appropriate terms 

and conditions, to allow use of range vegetation and promote stability for livestock enterprises. 

8. Coordinate, cooperate and consult with grazing permittees and grazing associations, and other interested parties in the development of allotment management plans. 
84 

9. Emphasize permittee and association responsibility and accountability for 

meeting terms and conditions of permits, allotment management plans, and annual operating instructions. 

10. Recover administrative costs of permit transactions initiated by the permittee. 

11. Manage wild free-roaming horse and burro populations in a thriving ecological balance within established territories. 

12. Manage noxious weeds, using integrated pest management techniques in 

close coordination and cooperation with adjacent landowners and agencies. 

13. Use cost effectiveness in range vegetation management. 

14. Optimize involvement of expertise within the Forest Service, from other 

agencies, organizations, permittees, and others in range vegetation management. 

15. Integrate range management and resolve oonflicts through Coordinated 

Resource Management by promoting voluntary cooperation among agencies, 

groups and individuals responsible for range resources on other land ownerships 

(FSM 1531.12e). 

OBJECTIVES

National Forest System 

Objectives of the range management program for the National Forests and National Grasslands are: 

1. To manage range vegetation to protect basic soil and water resources, provide for ecological diversity, improve or maintain environmental quality, and 

meet public needs for interrelated resource uses. 

2. To integrate management of range vegetation with other resource programs 

to achieve multiple use objectives contained in Forest land and resource management plans. 

3. To provide for livestock forage, wildlife food and habitat, outdoor recreation, and other resource values dependent on range vegetation. 

4. To contribute to the economic and social well being of people by providing 

opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities 

that depends on range resources for their livelihood. 

5. To provide expertise on range ecology, botany, and management of grazing 

animals. 

Question 17. Is anyone interested in acquiring the grazing permits and how long 

will the transaction take to complete? 

Answer. We have not asked for applications, so we know of no other entity that 

meets the meet minimum qualification for base property and livestock ownership. 
(85) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF MARC BASNIGHT, STATE SENATOR, RALEIGH, NC, ON S. 3113 

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, thank you for this opportunity to submit 

a statement in support of S. 3113, introduced by Senators Dole and Burr: To reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, pending the issuance of a final rule for 

off-road vehicle use by the National Park Service. 

My name is Marc Basnight, and I serve as President Pro Tempore of the North 

Carolina Senate. Since 1984 I have had the honor of representing State Senate District 1, which covers North Carolina’s northeastern region and the Outer Banks including the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. I appreciate this opportunity to share 

the concerns of the people I am honored to represent in the Senate, and to speak 

in support of this legislative effort to protect what has been a focal point of our community’s culture, economy and coastal heritage for generations. 

Back in the late 1930s, when the federal government was creating the recreational Seashore, Outer Banks residents and visitors were deeply concerned that 

government involvement would interfere with the public’s enjoyment of and access 

to the beaches of Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. It was an incredible relief that 

the Park Service and the Department of the Interior were willing to work so closely 

and cooperatively with the local community to address these concerns at that time— 

and ever since. 

And it is both ironic and disheartening that the concerns and fears expressed half 

a century ago now have come true because of intervention from the judicial branch. 

The federal Consent Decree issued on April 30, 2008, is effectively breaking the 

Park Service’s 1952 promise that ‘‘. . . there will always be access to the beach for 

all people, whether they are local residents or visitors from the outside.’’ This legislation will restore that promise and put the management of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore back in the hands of the Park Service, which has worked so diligently and judiciously over the years to protect sensitive species while preserving 

beach access. 

Beach driving and surf fishing are beloved local traditions and recreational opportunities that help people truly appreciate—and in turn, work to protect—our natural 

resources. The people who use this resource, in fact, are among our most conscientious stewards of the environment. In fact, outstanding beach access is a primary 

reason visitors choose to visit Hatteras. They come back year after year with their 

families to enjoy this unique opportunity and to teach their children the importance 

of caring for the environment. 

With the Consent Decree in place, visitors don’t know when and where they’ll 

have access to the beach with their vehicle. While online sites provide some guidance, these closure areas are large and can change with little notice. Visitors worry 

that the fishing spot they have visited for the past 20 years will not be accessible, 

even if it was the day before. The economies of Hatteras and Ocracoke depend heavily upon fishing and tourism, and losing access to some of the nation’s most premier 

surf-fishing spots has proven to be a devastating blow to our local community and 

economy—and to the prestige that Cape Hatteras gives North Carolina as a worldrenowned destination for fishing and recreation. According to the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, year-to-date meal and beverage receipts on Hatteras Island for 2008 

are down 7 percent from last year during the same time period. Visitation to one 

of the Seashore’s top attractions, the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, saw a 15 percent 

drop in visits for April through June. The small businesses and families whose livelihoods depend on visitors are reeling from the effects of the Consent Decree. I expect that our state’s overall economy will also feel some effects as well: Dare County 

generates more tourism dollars per capita than any other county in North Carolina. 
86 

Under circumstances defined in the Consent Decree, areas of Hatteras could be 

closed to ORV use for 1,000 meters on either side of a nest, which is 3,280 feet in 

two directions or over 1.2 miles. This is especially disconcerting when you consider 

that the Seashore is only 200 feet wide in some spots. Hatteras residents and visitors treasure this seashore and want to protect it because we have given them the 

privilege to experience it in a way they cannot experience other beaches. Before the 

Consent Decree, the Seashore has been managed by the National Park Service in 

a manner consistent with its mission, and should continue to be managed in that 

manner. The mission of the National Park Service is ‘‘to promote and regulate the 

use of the national parks which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of 

the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired or the 

enjoyment of future generations.’’ 

Part of our National Park Service’s mission is to be ‘‘guardian of our diverse cultural and recreational resources.’’ Several of the Guiding Principles of the National 

Park Service also speak to their duty to protect ORV use on the Seashore: 

• Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with federal, state, tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and businesses to work toward common goals 

• Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in the 

decisions and actions of the National Park Service 

• Wise Decisions: Integrating social, economic, environmental, and ethical considerations into the decision-making process. 

Ensuring that residents and visitors to Cape Hatteras National Seashore can 

enjoy the traditional uses of the area is the duty of the Park Service, not the court 

system. Beach access has always included vehicles—in fact, before we had roads 

built in the Outer Banks, the beaches were our roads. In 1952 the Park Service stated a clear intent to continue to allow vehicle access in the Seashore, specifically noting that ‘‘it will be necessary to establish certain regulations, such as to designate 

places for vehicles to get to the beach, in order to reduce sand dune erosion to a 

minimum . . .’’ Anyone who knows the Outer Banks knows that beach driving has 

always been part of our way of life. 

The National Park Service’s Interim Management Plan, developed with public 

input unlike the Consent Decree, is a balanced and sensible management plan 

based on the best science available. This plan will ensure reasonable ORV access 

that does not threaten delicate the nesting habitat of shorebirds and turtles—and 

will provide the best balance between man and nature until the National Park Service adopts final rules for the Seashore. 

This legislation will restore the Park Service to its proper role in managing the 

Seashore and keep the federal government’s promise to the people. On behalf of the 

countless visitors who enjoy our beaches, on behalf of the local businesses that are 

struggling so mightily to survive, on behalf of the conservationists who believe that 

to truly appreciate our natural resources you must have access to them, and on behalf of the people of the Outer Banks and North Carolina, I ask for your support 

of S. 3113. 

I would like to express my appreciation to Senators Dole and Burr—along with 

Congressman Jones in the House—for introducing this important legislation, and to 

you, Mr. Chairman and all the committee members, for giving this matter the consideration it is rightfully due. Thank you so very much for allowing me to share my 

thoughts with you, and for all you do in your service to our great nation. 

STATEMENT OF PHIL KROUSE, RANCHER, KROUSE RANCH INC., SOUTHERN OREGON, 

ON S. 3148 

Chairman Akaka, Ranking member Burr, Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, my name is Phil Krouse and I am a rancher in Southern Oregon. I 

would like to share my views regarding S. 3148, The Oregon Caves Monument 

Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008. I appreciate the Subcommittee allowing me to 

submit this statement for the record. The legislation before you today affects my 

family greatly. The grazing allotments in question, the Big Grayback Allotment in 

the Rogue River-Siskiyou National forest and the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management have been in my family for over 70 

years. 

I grew up on these ranges and alongside my grandparents and parents participated in something you only see in movies now days-cattle drives. In the process 

I grew to love these mountains and meadows. The names of ranchers who grazed 

cattle on these ranges: Oz Bigelow, Ed Kubli, Chester York, Orr Brown, Arian 
87 

Christiansen, and Mack McCarty read like a history book of this southern Oregon 

region. Oz Bigelow (Bigelow Lakes namesake) ran 800 head of cattle in this allotment that we now run 70. Over the years we have voluntarily decreased grazing 

herd size from our original permit of 200 head to the current 70. 

In 1945 my grandfather Albert Krouse, my dad Francis Krouse, and five other 

men from the ranching community of Applegate, Oregon built the Krouse cabin at 

the bottom of the alpine glade on Grayback Mountain. The cabin was their only 

shelter while gathering and corralling the cattle. Not only did my family and I 

spend many happy days and nights in that cabin but countless hikers, and nature 

enthusiasts had the opportunity to enjoy this gem of Grayback; until it was accidentally burned down in 2001. 

I have been lucky enough to have shared these ranges not only with previous generations of ranchers and family but also my son, two daughters and now my grandchildren. 

The loss of these allotments will be detrimental to the operation of our ranch. We 

will no longer be able to have reprieve on the ranch land in order to grow hay therefore it will not be cost effective for ranch operations to continue to raise cattle on 

this scale. Cattle ranching has been the only income this ranch has had for the past 

5 generations. This loss would force us into unknown financial endeavors; as a result this could mean the loss of our financial security, and way of life. 

While I am willing to donate my grazing leases to the Federal Government in the 

best interest of the expansion of the Oregon Caves Monument, for the sake of my 

family and future generations, I must make sure that I am fairly compensated before I hand them over. I understand that federal dollars are not available for grazing buyouts, but I am aware that private buyouts are acceptable. I do, however, 

want to be sure that I am allowed to freely graze livestock on these allotments until 

I am ready to accept any deal from a private group that wants to buy me out. I 

am also aware that the regulations for grazing on National Park Service are a lot 

more stringent than what I have been working with on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. I would ask the Committee to protect me 

until I am ready to donate my leases and that the current FS and BLM grazing 

regulations continue to apply to my allotments. 

I would like to close with some personal observations. For many people this 

buyout may seem to be about money, but I see it differently. To me and many other 

ranchers in the west, this is about preserving a way of life for future generations. 

I know that there has been and will continue to be many efforts to remove livestock 

from federal lands across the West. I urge the Committee to remember one simple 

thing. These Allotments help build rural communities and are part of the fabric of 

rural America. Farmers and ranchers are not the villains they are sometimes portrayed as being and they take great pride in producing the safest food supply in the 

world for Americans and many others around the globe. I urge you to be aware of 

this as you look at further buyouts of ranchers across the west, knowing that the 

retirement of these leases means less food being produced domestically and further 

reliance on imported food. We can’t allow our food supply to become like our energy 

supply. Our fellow Americans deserve better. 

I thank the Subcommittee for its consideration of my comments and I look forward to working with you. 

STATEMENT OF DERB S. CARTER, JR., SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, 

ON S. 3113 

This supplemental testimony is submitted on behalf of the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, and the Southern Environmental Law Center, in order to supplement our testimony provided prior to the National Park Subcommittee hearing on July 30, 2008. 

Because the Consent Decree was agreed to by all parties to the lawsuit in which 

it was entered, and because it provides overdue protection of the natural resources 

of Cape Hatteras National Seashore and allows for appropriately managed off-road 

vehicle (‘‘ORV’’) use, we oppose Senate Bill 3113, legislation that would overrule the 

Consent Decree and mandate a return to management practices that were resulting 

in declines and disappearance of wildlife from the Seashore. 

ADDITIONAL DATA

Since the National Park Subcommittee’s July 30, 2008, hearing, various government entities have released additional data that supports the Consent Decree and 

militates against passage of Senate Bill 3113. 
88 

1The previous record was 101 in 2001. UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROTOCOLS FOR NESTING SEA TURTLES AT CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA, 38 (2005). See also OUTER BANKS 

GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR AUGUST 6, 2008 at 2 (2008). 2OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

WEEKLY FIELD SUMMARY REPORT FOR AUGUST 6, 2008 at 1 (2008). These figures exclude Green Island, which is not reachable by ORVs due to its location in the sound. 3OUTER BANKS VISITORS BUREAU, GROSS OCCUPANCY SUMMARY 1994-2007, 

www.outerbanks.org/pdf/GrosslOccupancylSummarylreceipts.pdf. 4 Id. 

5 Ryan Hutchins, Outer Banks’ tourism up in June despite economy, VIRGINIAN-PILOT, Aug. 

4, 2008, available at http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/outer-banks-tourism-june-despite-economy. 6OUTER BANKS GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BEACH ACCESS REPORT FOR 

AUGUST 7, 2008 (2008). 7Press Release, Outer Banks Group, A Sixth Deliberate Violation of Resource Protection Area 

(July 31, 2008), at http://www.nps.gov/caha/parknews/a-sixth-deliberate-violation-of-resource-protection-area.htm. 8 Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Association website, http://capehatterasapa.org/. 

Effects of the Consent Decree on Wildlife at the Seashore 

We previously reported that the number of successful sea turtle nesting attempts 

had increased to 92 as of July 24, 2008, up from 82 during all of 2007. As of August 

6, there have now been 101 successfully laid sea turtle nests, tying the all-time high 

for at least the last 14 years.1 As over two weeks are left in the nesting season, 

it is highly likely this year will set a new record for turtle nests. 

Likewise, the number of fledged American oystercatcher chicks at the Seashore 

beaches has increased to 13 so far in 2008, up from 10 fledged chicks in all of 2007, 

and there are two chicks remaining which have yet to fledge.2

Once again, these preliminary indicators, along with those we reported in our initial testimony, show that all species appear to be benefiting from the management 

measures required by the Consent Decree. 

Economic Effects of the Consent Decree 

We previously testified that, according to Dare County’s Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, visitation during May 2008 (the first month of the Consent Decree) was 6.31% 

higher than May 2007.3 Dare County’s Outer Banks Visitors Bureau has now released its latest statistics, and the trend has continued. Visitation during June 

2008, as measured by occupancy of motels, cottages, and other accommodations, was 

7.32% higher than in June 2007.4 This continued increase in visitation occurred despite a still sagging economy and unrelenting high gas prices. Allen Burrus, Vice 

Chair of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, reports that his ‘‘small momand-pop grocery store’’ is ‘‘doing well’’ and that ‘‘[b]usiness is up.’’5 Accordingly, the 

Consent Decree still appears to have little to no measured ill effect on local tourism. 

Effects of the Consent Decree on Visitors to the Seashore 

We previously reported that, of Cape Hatteras National Seashore’s 67 miles of 

beaches, only 9.1 were closed to protect wildlife under the terms of the Consent Decree as of July 24, 2008; all other beach closures are the result of the usual seasonal 

and safety closures, unrelated to the Consent Decree or wildlife protection. As of August 7, 2008, the number of miles closed for wildlife protection has decreased to 7.9 

miles under the Consent Decree, as bird chicks have fledged and turtle nests have 

hatched.6

In addition, even more of the current amount of beach closures has been caused 

by vandalism of fencing and other wildlife protection measures. There have now 

been six incidents of vandalism (up from the four incidents reported prior to the 

Subcommittee hearing); the first violation in an area results in a 50 meter increase 

in the size of a buffer and the second violation in the same area results in a 100- 

meter increase.7

Response to Warren Judge’s Testimony 

The parties to the Consent Decree—and the lawsuit in which it was entered—are 

Dare County, Hyde County, Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (‘‘CHAPA’’), 

the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, the National Audubon 

Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. CHAPA is an umbrella organization that includes the Outer Banks Preservation Association, the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club, 

and the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association.8 Contrary to Mr. Judge’s testimony that implied to the contrary, all parties in the lawsuit participated in the ne-
89 

9 Hearing on S. 3113 Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, 110th Cong. (2008) (oral statement of Warren Judge, County 

Commissioner for Dare County, North Carolina) 10 1Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on January 20, 2008, in Defenders of 

Wildlife et al. v. National Park Service et al., case number 2:07-CV-45-BO (U.S. Dist. Ct. for 

the Eastern Dist. of N.C.). 11 Hearing on April 4, 2008, in Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. National Park Service et al., 

case number 2:07-CV-45-BO (U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern Dist. of N.C.). 12 Consent Decree at 3. 

gotiations, supported the Consent Decree, and recommended that the court approve 

it on April 30, 2008. 

In response to Chairman Akaka’s question regarding how Dare County could justify supporting legislation to overturn the Consent Decree after agreeing to it, Dare 

County Commissioner Warren Judge testified to the Subcommittee that his county 

was ‘‘not a player at [the negotiating] table until a hearing on April 4 in U.S District 

Court,’’ and that ‘‘it was even later than that when they finally invited us to the 

table—not to negotiate, to tell us—to tell us what it was going to be. We had our 

county attorney and assistant county manager in Raleigh at the negotiations and 

they sent him home. After we released a press release, telling that the negotiations 

had broken off, it was only then that they called us back. It was 4:30 one afternoon 

that they gave us an ultimatum and that ultimatum was either accept this by 5:00 

or we will go forward into court and the—the—the threat to Dare County was that 

the seashore would be closed down completely until negotiated rulemaking ran its 

course.’’ He concluded by stating that ‘‘Yes, we signed the document. We signed it 

under great duress’’ and by making the unsubstantiated claim that the county 

would suffer ‘‘economic[] devastati[on]’’ due to complete beach closures if it had not 

agreed to the Consent Decree.9

This testimony was misleading, unsubstantiated, and incorrect. First, complete 

closure of the entire Seashore beach was never demanded or threatened by any 

party to the lawsuit or as part of the negotiations that led to the Consent Decree. 

If Dare County had chosen not to join the Consent Decree, the government and environmental groups could have moved forward asking the court to accept it. Dare 

County and the other Intervenors could have then objected to the Consent Decree 

and appealed it if it was approved by the court. And even if the other parties had 

not reached an agreement and presented a consent decree to the court for approval, 

the court would have moved on to consider a pending motion for preliminary injunction which requested the ORV management protocols recommended as ‘‘moderate 

protections’’ by the government’s scientists at the United States Geological Survey, 

not complete beach closure of the entire Seashore.10 In sum, complete closure of the 

beach was not a threatened alternate outcome of the lawsuit when Dare County 

chose to approve the Consent Decree. 

Moreover, Mr. Judge’s assertion that Intervenors were not included in negotiations is false. Although Dare County and the other Intervenors were asked to submit a settlement proposal and invited to actively join the negotiations on numerous 

occasions beginning when their motion to intervene was first granted in December 

2007, they, through their attorney, initially repeatedly, consistently, and affirmatively refused to submit a proposal. Dare County, Hyde County, and the CHAPA did 

receive written settlement proposals from the government and/or the environmental 

groups on or about December 20, 2007, February 28, 2008, April 2, 2008, and April 

11, 2008. They commented on those settlement proposals in February, March, and 

April, and finally submitted their own initial settlement proposal on March 31, 

2008. 

The statements of Intervenors’ attorney in court acknowledged this extensive involvement in settlement negotiations prior to the April 4 hearing. Contrary to Mr. 

Judge’s testimony that Intervenors were not at the negotiating table before the 

April 4, 2008 hearing with Judge Boyle, Intervenors’ counsel confirmed at that hearing that they ‘‘have been in discussions’’ and that there were ‘‘certain areas that we 

have of agreement.’’11 This statement makes clear that not only were Intervenors 

involved in negotiations prior to April 4, they were in agreement on some elements 

of the negotiations. Moreover, by signing the Consent Decree, Dare County and the 

other Intervenors affirmed that it is a ‘‘fair, just, adequate, and equitable resolution’’ 

of the lawsuit.12 As a result of these contradictions, Mr. Judge’s response to Sen. 

Akaka’s question cannot be taken at face value. 

CONCLUSION

In sum, all parties and interests agreed in open court to the terms of the Consent 

Decree augmenting the terms of the ‘‘interim plan’’ until such time as the National 
90 

Park Service adopts a final ORV management plan, and a federal court approved 

it. As the statistics above and in our original testimony show, the slight increase 

in the portions of the beach that have been closed to ORV use under the Consent 

Decree has had little to no impact on tourism and on the numbers of ORVs using 

the Seashore. At the same time, however, the closures appear to have had a strikingly positive effect on the success of the endangered, threatened, and sensitive species that live and breed at Cape Hatteras. We ask, therefore, that this Committee 

reject Senate Bill 3113 and leave the Consent Decree in place. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBERTSON, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SPORTFISHING

ASSOCIATION, ON H.R. 3113 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the record regarding S. 3113, to reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, pending the 

issuance of a final rule for off-road vehicle use by the National Park Service. The 

American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing industry’s trade association, committed to representing the interests of the sportfishing industry, as well 

as America’s 40 million recreational anglers. ASA also invests in long-term ventures 

to ensure the industry will remain strong and prosperous as well as safeguard and 

promote the enduring social, economic, and conservation values of sportfishing in 

America. 

ASA urges members of the Subcommittee on National Parks and the Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources to support S. 3113. The provisions of the Interim 

Management Strategy balanced the resource protection requirements for wildlife 

with reasonable access to the beaches for pedestrians and off road vehicles. However, the provisions of the Consent Decree are resulting in undue harm to the local 

community without any significant added benefits to the wildlife of the Seashore. 

BACKGROUND

Presidential Executive Order 11644 of 1972 requires federal agencies permitting 

off-road vehicle (ORV) use on agency lands to make regulations for such use. However, a long-term ORV management plan was never finalized for Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area (CHNSRA), and in late December 2007 the Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne approved the creation of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Reg-Neg) to facilitate the development of the plan. The Committee consists of a variety of stakeholders and user groups of CHNSRA, including 

anglers, local business owners, environmental groups, tourism organizations, and 

homeowners, among others. ASA is also a member of the Reg-Neg. 

In addition to the Reg-Neg, on June 13, 2007 the National Park Service (NPS) 

finalized an Interim Protected Species Management Strategy (Interim Strategy) to 

ensure that wildlife within CNHSRA would be protected during the creation of a 

long-term plan. This Strategy was developed via an open, public process that included public comment, an evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and a Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

It is important to note that the Reg-Neg was ‘‘sold’’ to community residents as 

a way to avoid litigation, and ground rules were finalized that specifically called for 

members to negotiate in good faith and to ‘‘voluntarily curtail using other means 

to influence the proposed regulations.’’ All parties negotiated and verbally agreed to 

these rules, including the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), National 

Audubon Society (Audubon) and the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW), who all hold a 

seat on the Reg-Neg Committee. 

On February 20, 2008, after a series of court filings, DOW and Audubon (Plaintiffs) filed an injunction that would essentially result in all ORV access, except for 

essential NPS vehicles, being prohibited on CHNSRA. As a result of this injunction, 

the Plaintiffs entered into negotiations with the Department of the Interior (DOI), 

to be joined later by Dare County as interveners. These negotiations resulted in a 

consent decree that was ultimately approved by Federal District Judge Terrence 

Boyle on April 30, 2008. The details of the Consent Decree are extensive and put 

in place protections for shorebirds that exceed the protections outlined in the Interim Strategy. This Consent Decree, which will remain in effect for three years 

until the NPS issues a final long-term ORV Management Plan, has resulted in substantial restrictions on traditional ORV access to key surf fishing spots in CHNSRA 

and an undue economic burden on the local economy with no remarkable added benefit to the local wildlife. 
91 

1 Annual Fish and Wildlife Service Piping Plover Status Updates, Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore Annual Resource Management Reports, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Weekly Field Summaries. 

INTERIM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY VS CONSENT DECREE

Although the NPS’ Interim Strategy was not a final rule, it provided stakeholders 

with all the procedural protections and opportunities of a final rule, addressing the 

requirements of the Executive Order and the appropriate regulations. For resource 

protection, these included: 

• Year-round closure of areas historically occupied by nesting or wintering plovers 

and that currently include suitable habitat, • Closure (to ORVs as well as to pedestrians and pets) of suitable breeding habitat through the breeding season, • Establishment of a minimum 150-foot buffer around all nesting plovers, • Expansion of closed areas once eggs hatch, and • Monitoring to ensure that new closures are added or expanded as required by 

bird activity. 

The Interim Strategy also regulated ORV use, addressing the requirements of the 

Executive Order through: 

• Consolidation and designation of beach access routes • Identification of a permitted ORV travel corridor on the beach • Speed limits and license requirements for vehicle operators • Protection of vegetation and sea turtle and bird nesting areas • Designation of summer seasonal ORV closures in front of villages • Signage to notify visitors of the above 

The development and approval of the Interim Strategy was performed via an 

open, transparent process. As part of its development, the NPS conducted a NEPA 

Review (including an economic analysis), ESA Section 7 Consultation, and public 

comment period. The provisions of the Consent Decree were never subject to these 

reviews. There was no opportunity for public participation, comment, or input. And 

more importantly, while the provisions of the Consent Decree are based off of management protocols developed by the USGS, neither the Consent Decree nor the protocols have undergone any sort of evaluation under NEPA. Without this evaluation, 

part of which is to weigh the benefits of resource conservation measures with the 

costs imposed on local communities/economies, the citizens of CHNSRA have been 

denied their due public process. 

The preliminary injunction filed by the Plaintiffs in early 2008 states that the Interim Strategy was inadequate. It even went as far as to state, ‘‘The first year of 

the ‘interim plan,’ 2007, was one of the worst bird breeding seasons on record.’’ 

However, the Interim Strategy was implemented in mid-June, 3 months after the 

bird breeding season began. Therefore, since the Interim Strategy was not in place 

for a complete breeding season, it is not reasonable to place the blame of the 2007 

breeding season on the Interim Strategy. 

In reality, in the short time that the Interim Strategy was in place it did serve 

to adequately protect the shorebirds and sea turtles that breed in CHNSRA. It also 

served to set a foundation for a successful ‘‘pre-nesting’’ season in Spring 2008. 

The piping plover, the bird at the heart of this controversy, is the only bird found 

on CHNSRA that is listed as federally threatened. North Carolina is positioned in 

the species’ range such it is at the southern tip of the plover’s breeding range and 

the northern tip of their wintering range. Therefore, the piping plover never was 

and never will be abundant in CHNSRA. 

Also, the piping plover population on CHNSRA has always been dependent on 

weather—specifically hurricanes—and predation. According to NPS and FWS reports,1 the recent dramatic decline in the number of breeding pairs of piping plovers 

in CHNSRA is due to eight hurricanes that hit the Outer Banks of North Carolina 

in nine years. In 1996, there were 14 breeding pairs; in 2004 there were three. However, no hurricanes have hit the Outer Banks since 2004 and the number of breeding pairs has slowly risen to six in 2007. Predators such as seagulls, crows, raccoons, and foxes also contribute to nest failure and juvenile mortality, since eggs 

and unfledged chicks are easy prey and a typical part of their diets. In 2008, the 

only juvenile plover mortality caused by human influences was during an NPS 

banding exercise. 

In addition, due to the pre-nesting closures that were called for in the Interim 

Strategy and were put into place in March 2008, the foundation was set for the piping plovers to have a successful breeding season in 2008. In mid-July, the NPS de-
92 

2 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Weekly Field Summary; July 17 to 

July 23, 2008 3 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Weekly Field Summary; July 17 to 

July 23, 2008 4 North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries and Wildlife Resources Commission, Coastal 

Recreational Fishing Licenses Sales Update. 

termined that there have been 11 breeding pairs in the Seashore this year—one of 

the most successful years in 20 years. However, this success is due to the pre-nesting closures of the Interim Strategy, not the provisions of the Consent Decree, which 

was not signed until after the breeding birds were on the Seashore. In addition, the 

2007 Interim Strategy allowed 67% of the breeding pairs to fledge a chick, as compared to 63% under the consent decree.2

Both the Interim Strategy and the Consent Decree also focus on the protection 

of colonial water birds (terns) and nesting shorebirds. While some have contended 

that there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of terns and black skimmers 

in CHNSRA, and that this decrease is due to ORV use, the fact is that these birds 

have chosen to nest on a dredge spoil island located in the sound within one quarter 

of a mile of Hatteras Village. This island offers more preferable habitat and is free 

of predators. 

Finally, according the NPS, 22 pairs of American Oyster Catchers hatched 15 

nests and 29 chicks. In 2008, 23 breeding pairs again hatched 15 nests and only 

26 checks.3 The American Oyster Catcher has strong site fidelity, meaning they 

tend to return to the same location each year to breed. Therefore, the 2008 breeding 

success is due to the resource protection measures provided by the Interim Strategy. 

Both the Interim Strategy and the Consent Decree include provisions to protect 

nesting sea turtles. Loggerhead turtles, the only turtle nesting at CHNSRA in 2008, 

nest on average once every three years. Each turtle lays an average of five nests 

per season at about one hundred eggs per nest. While it’s true that numbers are 

up this year—99 nests this year as compared to 82 in 2007—the increase cannot 

be attributed solely to the provisions of the Consent Decree. The number of sea turtle nests are up all over North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia as well. In 

fact, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is bordered both north and south 

by CHNSRA and not subject to the Consent Decree—has had a record number of 

nests this year. 

IMPACT ON CHNSRA

Beach driving is a traditional use of the CHNSRA, predating the 1937 authorization of the National Seashore, and has become a popular method of access for recreational pursuits. The Consent Decree has resulted in unprecedented closures (and 

blocked access of ‘‘open’’ areas) of the most popular areas of the seashore to both 

ORVs and pedestrians, limiting access for all user groups including fishermen, 

kiteboarders, swimmers, birdwatchers and families. It prohibits night driving in 

summer, at the peak of the tourist season, and has also restricted pedestrian access. 

It should be noted that even if a section of beach might be deemed ‘‘open’’ for the 

purposes of comparing the amount of open area vs the amount of closed area, it 

might not be accessible to ORVs or pedestrians. 

While the provisions of the Consent Decree will have less of an impact during the 

fall, the summer closures are significant and during the time the majority of vacationers visit CHNSRA, providing the greatest economic input for the community. 

Because the Consent Decree was never subject to a NEPA evaluation, an economic 

analysis was not performed to measure the potential impact on the local tourismbased economy. Many tackle shops and other businesses in CHNSRA have experienced a decrease in business activity of up to 40%. While hotel occupancy was initially up in May 2008 (the Consent Decree did not take effect until May 1, after 

visitors could obtain a refund for their hotel or rental property), it has fallen off 

through the summer months. In addition, while fishing license sales throughout the 

State of North Carolina have dropped an average of 39% since last year, license 

sales in Dare County has decreased by 50%. Dare County was the largest seller of 

saltwater licenses in 2007; they are now eighth in the state.4

SUMMARY

The NPS maintains, and ASA agrees, that ORV’s must be regulated in a manner 

that appropriately addresses resource protection—including protected, threatened 

and endangered species—and potential conflicts among the various CHNSRA users. 

However, this was addressed by the development of the Interim Strategy, which the 

NPS failed to defend in the lawsuit. The end result is that Defenders of Wildlife 
93 

and the National Audubon Society have accomplished through litigation what they 

pledged to work toward cooperatively toward in good faith with all stakeholders 

through the Reg-Neg. 

The Consent Decree was essentially exempted from the official NEPA review process, and undermined NPS staff and their scientific data. It set a precedent that private interest groups can negotiate a settlement with the Administration, in absence 

of public input, to govern National Park management. This is to the detriment of 

the 1,000 residents of the seashore, whose livelihoods depend on beach access, and 

the millions of CHNSRA visitors. 

S. 3113 will reinstate a management strategy that underwent the appropriate review process, restoring reasonable ORV and pedestrian access to CHNSRA while 

providing appropriate shorebird and resource protection. The enactment of S. 3113 

will also provide relief for a community suffering economic consequences due to the 

Consent Decree. The Interim Strategy will provide ample protections for shorebirds 

until the final ORV Management Plan is complete and will help to save the economy 

and way-of-life of the Hatteras community—and the entire Outer Banks of North 

Carolina. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN LEIGH DUNNIGAN, INTERIM DIRECTOR, HEAD OF RESEARCH

AND PUBLICATION, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI 

The battle cry ‘‘Remember the Raisin’’ made its way into American history and 

memory during the War of 1812. Like its better-known contemporary, ‘‘Don’t Give 

Up the Ship,’’ it had its origins in a United States defeat and was used to encourage 

American forces to rally for future victories. ‘‘Remember the Raisin’’ recalls events 

that transpired in and around the village of Frenchtown, or River Raisin, in Michigan Territory between January 18 and 23, 1813, comprising a pair of small but 

fierce battles and an incident in which the wounded of the defeated American force 

were attacked by Native American allies of the British. It was the latter occurrence, 

and the belief that it was encouraged by the British, that was to be remembered 

by the soldiers and civilians who took up the cry. 

The River Raisin battlefield site is today in a condition that allows its designation 

and preservation as a National Historic Landmark for the special significance of 

what it represents about the War of 1812. The battles fought there in January 1813 

were not particularly influential in changing the course or the direction of the war 

or even the military campaign on the southern margins of the Great Lakes. The significance of the site lies in its manifestation that the War of 1812 in the West actually constituted a pair of parallel conflicts, in which United States forces contended 

with the British and Canadians in a conventional war but were also involved in a 

full-scale and bitter wilderness conflict with the remaining organized Native American groups living east of the Mississippi River. The fighting represented the culmination of conflict in the Old Northwest between Indians and Euro-Americans that 

had been underway since the 1750s, and the War of 1812 was the last time that 

the native peoples of that vast region would fight effectively for their land and their 

independence. 

The circumstances that caused a force of around one thousand US regulars and 

Kentucky militia to march into the village of Frenchtown (today Monroe, Michigan) 

in January 1813 resulted from efforts by United States forces to recover from the 

disastrous outcome of an attempt to invade British Canada from the Michigan Territory in the summer of 1812. This had ended in the loss of Forts Mackinac and 

Dearborn, an army, and Detroit, the territorial capital, and had exposed the frontiers of Ohio and Indiana Territory to attack by the British and their Native American allies. All of the surrenders of 1812 had been influenced by the real or perceived possibility that resistance might cause Native American warriors to take 

their revenge on hapless civilians, an implied threat that British leaders used to 

their advantage to ensure victory. 

The fighting of January 18 (an American victory) and January 22 (a successful 

British-Indian counterattack) left some sixty-five American wounded, who were not 

removed to the British post of Malden with their fellow prisoners of war. These 

unfortunates and about thirty able-bodied comrades were sheltered in houses of the 

River Raisin settlement, where Native American warriors set upon them on January 

23. It was a scenario that played to the worst fears of the American frontiersman— 

that his fate as a captive might be in the hands of a relentless and unmerciful native enemy. 

The attack on the wounded at River Raisin and the implied collusion of the British by leaving the helpless prisoners unguarded and exposed presented a propa-
94 

ganda opportunity that could be directed against both enemies of the United States 

in the western war. The British could be made to appear to have ignored the rules 

of ‘‘civilized’’ warfare, while the action of the Indians was exactly what most Americans expected and feared. A lurid contemporary print depicting the attack on the 

wounded makes the charge, through its visual details, that the British provided 

both scalping knives and liquor to fuel the atrocity. This implication harks back to 

the fighting in the Old Northwest during the 1790s when the British were accused 

of encouraging and supplying Native American resistance to the advance of the 

American frontier. In the event the message was not clear, the River Raisin print 

also includes a British flag waving above a nearby military encampment, although 

no red-coated soldiers are in evidence to intervene and save the wounded Americans. 

The attack on the wounded at the River Raisin struck a special chord with the 

citizens of Kentucky and the frontier area north of the Ohio River. The call for 

vengeance inherent in ‘‘Remember the Raisin’’ set the tone for the fighting that took 

place in northern Ohio and Ontario during the military campaign of 1813. This culminated in an American victory at the Battle of the Thames, in October, and the 

death of the celebrated Shawnee leader, Tecumseh. Although Native American resistance was not crushed in this battle, the symbolic loss was considerable, and the 

peace treaty between the United States and Britain that ended the War of 1812 left 

them with no guarantees for the future. 

The War of 1812 in the West was a very different conflict than that fought along 

the eastern seaboard and the northeastern border of the United States and British 

Canada. The conflict in the West included the additional component of widespread 

warfare with Native Americans—a continuation of the fighting that had wracked 

the region for the past sixty years. The War of 1812 would effectively end that long 

conflict and set the stage for the gradual extinguishing, over the next twenty-five 

years, of Indian land claims and the removal of many Native Americans beyond the 

Mississippi River. 

The River Raisin battlefield site is highly significant as a reminder of the dual 

conflict represented by the War of 1812 in the West and its impact on the continued 

western expansion of the United States and the future of the Native American peoples of the region. It represents the symbolic culmination of the clash between 

American frontiersmen and Native Americans in the Old Northwest. No other site 

better represents this theme of American history, and its relevance is strengthened 

by the River Raisin’s proximity to two other sites, Perry’s Victory and International 

Peace Memorial, representative of the conventional war with the British, and Fallen 

Timbers, which represents the Indian wars of the 1790s. 

STATEMENT OF J.W. ‘‘BILL’’ WADE, CHAIR, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, COALITION OF

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RETIREES, ON S. 3113 

Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, we ask 

that you accept this statement for the record, reflecting the views of the Coalition 

of National Park Service Retirees on the important topic of protecting resources and 

providing for visitor enjoyment at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North 

Carolina. 

The Coalition now consists of 660 individuals, all former employees of the National Park Service, with more joining us almost daily. Together we bring to this 

hearing over 19,500 years of accumulated experience. Many of us were senior leaders and many received awards for stewardship of our country’s natural and cultural 

resources. As rangers, executives, park managers, biologists, historians, interpreters, planners and specialists in other disciplines, we devoted our professional 

lives to maintaining and protecting the national parks for the benefit of all Americans—those now living and those yet to be born. In our personal lives we come from 

a broad spectrum of political affiliations and we count among our members six 

former Directors or Deputy Directors of the National Park Service, twenty-three 

former Regional Directors or Deputy Regional Directors, twenty-eight former Associate or Assistant Directors and over one hundred and fifty former Park Superintendents or Assistant Superintendents. 

We are strongly opposed to S. 3113, which would reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 

pending the issuance of a final rule by the National Park Service (NPS). 

This proposed legislation, evidently promoted by very narrow special interests, 

would inappropriately and unnecessarily rescind a consent-decree agreed to by Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society; and Dare and Hyde Counties 

and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (an off-road vehicle group). The 
95 

decree safeguards wildlife, while still allowing visitors to fish, surf, drive on certain 

portions of the beach and enjoy other activities at the Seashore. 

This proposed Bill is partisan legislative interference at its worst, and not only 

would overrule a legitimate judicial process, agreed to by both sides of the issue; 

but could negatively influence the established negotiated rulemaking process currently underway that has brought together many parties with interests in how the 

NPS ultimately manages off-highway vehicles and, at the same time, protects wildlife at the Seashore. 

The National Park Service has been out of compliance with its legislated responsibilities for a number of years and is now making a determined effort to meet those 

requirements. 

What is critically important here is that a final solution must be reached that will 

provide for the protection of several threatened species of birds and turtles for the 

enjoyment of Americans now and in the future; while still allowing for appropriate 

levels of other visitor uses in the Seashore. We believe that the legally derived consent decree ought to be allowed to stand and that the legitimate negotiated rulemaking process ought to be allowed to run its course, both without interference from 

legislation that represents only a very narrow set of interests. We believe this is the 

best process to meet the mission of the National Park Service at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK M. FOLB, FRANK & FRAN’S THE FISHERMAN’S FRIEND, INC., 

AVON, NC, ON S. 3113 

Thank you, Chairman Daniel K. Akaka and the committee for the opportunity to 

submit written testimony for the record in support of S. 3113. 

I am Frank Folb, the 65 year old who is owner and Secretary/Treasurer of Frank 

and Fran’s The Fisherman’s Friend. My wife and I have been operating this retail 

fishing tackle store in Avon, NC for over twenty years. My wife and I have lived 

on Hatteras Island since August 1975 and my mother’s family (the Miller family) 

goes back many generations on Hatteras Island. I am a present member of the Negotiated Rule Making Committee formed to advise the National Park Service in establish an ORV plan for the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Seashore. I represent Avon Property Owners Association where I was past president and now hold 

a director’s position. (The association represents over 1800 property owners in 

Avon.) I am a member of the Outer Banks Preservation Association, and past director, since the mid 1970’s, a member of the Cape Hatteras Angler’s Club, the North 

Carolina Beach Buggy Association, and the American Sportfishing Association. 

Until recently, when this matter consumed every waking hour of my time, I was 

a member of four North Carolina Marine Fisheries Advisory Committees, a NC Sea 

Grant Committee and a Federal Fisheries Committee. 

Over two years ago the National Park Service began taking applications for committee members of the Negotiated Rule Making Advisory Committee for implementing the Off Road Vehicle Plan mandated by President Nixon’s 1972 Executive 

Order. At the interviews, we were told that we would be working from an even playing field and that all options would be considered that would be applicable under 

NEPA regulations. Meetings were held to consider facilitators for the meetings. Two 

workshops for potential committee members were held, and during these workshops 

the problem of the lawsuit instituted by potential members of the committee were 

discussed and the level playing field was discussed. At one of the meetings in Nags 

Head, NC I noted that although we would not be given Pea Island Wildlife Refuge 

as an area of consideration for routes and areas for Off Road Vehicles to be used 

that the area would be considered as a negotiating chip in future meetings. And finally, we were placed in the Federal Register for comment before being formally 

given positions by the Secretary of the Interior. From the first official meeting to 

present, no even playing field has been present due to the law suit and now due 

to its settlement. At the two court hearings on the suit, the judge showed adamant 

disregard for the intervener’s comments and total belittling to the justice department’s lawyers. At the April 4th 2008 hearing he questioned why the plaintiff wanted an extension when he was ready to give them injunctive relief then. At the April 

30th 2008 hearing he washed his hands of the matter in giving them the consent 

decree after over thirty minutes of questioning, preaching and degrading of the 

whole process. The settlement was reached behind closed doors without comment 

from the public and it was based on questionable, non-peer reviewed science. The 

interim plan in place when the settlement was reached had gone through public review and a Section 7 was done by NPS and USFW. 
96 

As a member of the public and Negotiated Rule Making Committee, I felt that 

through the NEPA and our committee process that there were less restrictive options than the interim plan covered that could be implemented. The consent decree 

has destroyed the committees’ ability to negotiate any balanced ideas less than its 

requirements. In fact, in an informal gathering of three members of the pro access 

committee members and two of the environment committee members that sit on a 

sub-committee for areas and routes for off road vehicles this summer during the 

break of formal full committee meetings on Tuesday July 22, 2008 it became apparent that the environmental members want more restrictive regulations than the 

present consent decree allows for the final plan. 

Under the impending lawsuit and the implementation of the consent decree, my 

business has already suffered financial losses. In 2007 North Carolina’s legislature 

instituted a fishing license that many feared would cause decreased revenue, but 

we had a very good year. Although in 2007 the fishing license was new and only 

warnings were issued, the NC Department of Marine Fisheries forecast for 2008 

was that there would be higher sales this year. Dare County, who was the largest 

seller of fishing license in 2007 for the state and my business, have seen negative 

sales of licenses this year and they follow closely the decreases in business I have 

encountered. You may see the table taken from my business records below: 

Many vacationers this year were unaware of the restrictions on their activities 

and others that did know would lose large deposits on homes they have rented this 

year. For this reason, 2009 will be much worse than this year. We have reduced 

our work force by two people this year and morale is bad. Had I sold my business 

two to three years ago when the market and economy were peaking I could have 

retired, but now with the economy reducing the value of my business by 20% and 

the consent decree reducing the business I would have difficulty selling the business 

for 50% of the offer I had two years ago. Our business is Fran and my retirement 

fund, but now that looks bleak. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit written testimony. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK M. FOLB, FRAN & FRAN’S THE FISHERMAN’S FRIEND, INC., 

ON S. 3113 

I hope you will take the time to read this letter and the accompanying attachments I have put together. My family resides in Buxton, NC in the middle of Cape 

Hatteras National Recreational Seashore. We have lived on the island most of our 

lives and have been full time residents in Buxton, NC since 1975 when my mother 

passed away and we moved into my parent’s residence. Our home is only a tenth 

of a mile from where she and past generations of her family now rest. My father 

moved to America from Lithuania inl 900 at the age of 8 to escape the poverty, persecutions, and terrors of that society with WW1 looming. 

As I am sure you know, Cape Hatteras is synonymous with surf fishing and is 

widely considered the surf fishing capital of the East coast. To access the fishing 

areas, fishermen have for years utilized ‘‘ Beach Buggys’’ 4x4 SUV vehicles. This 

access is eminently being threatened. For the last 12 weeks the best areas of the 

seashore have been closed during the peak spring fishing and visitor season. Closing 

these areas is the equivalent of closing Florida Keys waters during Tarpon season 

or blocking off the entrance to Magic Kingdom at Disney World. Thousands of fishermen make their annual spring pilgrimage to Cape Hatteras in quest of the spring 

fish runs and to enjoy summer beach activities. With the down turn in the economy 

Cape Hatteras is a relatively inexpensive drive to location that in the past has 

shown increases of visitors, however, this year National Park Service records show 
97 

* Attachments have been retained in subcommittee files. 

a 17 percent plus decrease in visitation. This decrease is not related to the current 

price of gas. Just north of us the Wright Brothers Memorial is showing a slight 2 

percent decrease in visitors. 

We can have 4x4 SUV accesses to major surf fishing hot spots without threatening any bird life. Unfortunately no one uses the middle ground anymore. Every 

issue has an extremist these days and no good comes from it. These extremists I 

am referring to hide under the disguise of GREEN and have their own agenda 

which is threatening our islands heritage, way of life and economic well being. 

Under the present regulations provided by the Consent Decree, an area the size of 

three US Navy Super Carriers lined end to end as a radius fenced off for each nest 

with a hatched piping plover, allows no off-road vehicles or pedestrian access to the 

area.(See attached illustration.)* 

Our island is being threatened by an all too familiar radical political movement 

called ‘‘environmentalism,’’ that is plaguing the entire USA, and denying us of property and public land usage rights, and the individual right to participate fully in 

the policy-making of government agencies that affect our businesses and our traditional way of life. The particular organizations that have taken control of our community and caused great harm to our way of life and the economy are the Audubon 

Society, the Defenders of Wildlife, and the Southern Environmental Law Institute. 

Unlike these well funded special interest groups, our community citizens’ group has 

very limited out of pocket funding, but never the less has fended off these groups 

in court actions for eight years spending nearly $1,000,000.00. These are moneys 

that we could have used for our health care and education of our children. 

On April 30, 2008 Federal District Judge Terrence Boyle, allowed these groups, 

with the help of highly biased ‘‘green minded’’ officials in the Department of Interior 

in Washington, to settle a suit against the National Park Service, behind closed 

doors, without public comment or review. Many of my fellow citizens believe that 

the National Park Service officials in Washington went to these groups and said; 

‘‘Sue us so we can get what we want on Cape Hatteras and we will roll over in 

court.’’ The local concerned citizens group, Dare County, and Hyde County filed as 

interveners, but only through last minute acceptance in the negotiations were they 

able to salvage small concessions before the ‘‘settlement’’ was finalized by the court. 

The judge signed off on what is essentially a federal regulation contracted between 

radical environmental groups and the federal government where, in actuality, the 

federal government agrees to answer to these special interest groups for the next 

three years, ignoring scientific facts and the needs and desires of the general public. 

The interveners had no choice but to go along with the agreement or have the publicly accessible shoreline shut down completely. The court knew that and could have 

at least opened the settlement to include public hearings. 

The stated reason for court approval of the ‘‘closure’’ provisions of the settlement 

was the protection and production of bird species. Two species of birds, neither of 

which are listed by the government as endangered, are specified in the settlement: 

the Piping Plover and the American Oystercatcher. The closure distances and provisions in the settlement are not based on published science; they are arbitrary. 

Along the 60-mile park coast, only 7 piping plovers fledged this breeding season. 

The 15-year production rate for the piping plover is 0.66 chicks/pair. The Park Service today announced that this year’s Piping Plover production level is 0.64. That 

rate is less than the rate when there was beach access by ORVs. Much is the same 

for the American Oystercatcher, out of 27 birds that hatched only 10 have fledged. 

Most nests and hatched birds have been lost to predation, a few to storms, and 

one at the hands of a university researcher. This data suggests that ORVs do not 

reduce the productivity of birds and that previous park management programs (the 

interim strategy) has been effective at protecting birds. 

The shutdown of the park beaches has been a tremendous insult to the public. 

It is waste of public resource at an outrageous cost to the local community, county, 

state and federal government. The consent decree is ‘‘bad public policy’’ to the point 

of being a ‘‘public nuisance’’ as illustrated below: 

• The public has been deprived of public participation and park access rights. 

Particularly affected are the disabled and elderly members of our society who 

cannot get to the beach even on foot. 

• The consent decree has created enormous public anxiety and outrage. The closures policy has been the catalyst for threats of physical violence, public disobedience, slander, and vandalism. It has contributed to a distrust of government 

and unnecessary tensions between citizen groups. 
98 

• Park Service professionals have been stripped of their prerogatives to make 

judgment calls and deal reasonably and equitably with the public they are 

sworn to serve. • Especially disturbing, the consent decree establishes a policy of retaliation and 

punishment for the general public when violations of the consent decree occur. 

Every time there is an act of vandalism, the Park Service is required, without 

any management discretion, to significantly extend boundaries and widen nonaccess areas. 

• Visitor habits and plans are changing. Hundreds of trips to the Outer Banks 

have been canceled or redirected to other parts of the country because of actual 

or threatened beach closures 

• The decree has produced significant economic harm to small family businesses. 

For some businesses, revenues are down 50% or more and some employees have 

been laid off. Gas station, restaurant, and motel revenues are down. 

• Risks of ORV and pedestrian accidents have increased as ORVs and pedestrians 

are forced into smaller areas. 

• On certain days, there is an absence of public parking and unclear direction and 

access to the shore line. 

We need your committee’s help! What can you do? I have some ideas, but being 

a small fish in a large sea of bigger, smarter fish I defer to the expertise of my countries legislators. My ideas are as follows: 

1. We want the park returned to the full control of the US Park Service who 

by profession will answer to the needs of the public. A federal judge is not qualified to manage a national park. Make the legislation (Sen. Bill 3113) stronger 

by going back and reviewing the enabling legislation. There you will find that 

Cape Hatteras National Recreational Seashore was set up for the people first 

in its design and management. (Investigate the interveners file and its attachments filed in the lawsuit against National Park Service that resulted in this 

bill.) 

2. Hold congressional hearings on the matter of conflict of political interests 

and investigate the appearance of preferential treatment and special consideration for environmental organizations by senior management of National Park 

Service, Department of Interior, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

3. Investigate the blocking of rebuilding a bridge over Oregon Inlet which has 

received the same mistreatment as the public access issue is receiving now. 

These environmental activists groups are also putting the public at great risk 

by delaying the construction of the much needed Bonner Bridge. The current 

bridge is rated at an extremely dangerous category 2 on a scale of 100. It is 

the only evacuation route from a hurricane prone island that during hurricane 

season may have tens of thousands of visitors in addition to twenty thousand 

full time residents. 

4. Pass Sen. Bill 3113 out of committee and get it passed to enable local NPS 

the ability to retake control of the seashore and allow time for Negotiated Rule 

Making and NEPA to properly put in place an ORV plan. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY A. GOLDING, RESIDENT OF BUXTON, NC, ON S. 3113 

I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit written testimony 

for the record in support of S. 3113. As a knowledgeable and concerned citizen, I 

feel it is my civic duty to make timely comment and to respectfully request that you 

pass S. 3113 out of committee and allow a vote by the Senate. 

When Congress established Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area 

(CHNSRA) in 1937 its intent was to permanently provide for all Americans a unique 

area for their enjoyment and use. For years now, those of us who utilize this unique 

resource have been under assault by a variety of environmental special interest 

groups who would deny us access, but not themselves. They have tried compaction 

studies attempting to show that ORVs’ were damaging the beach. Only to find their 

data lost when it rained or a storm occurred. They have filed lawsuit after lawsuit 

in federal court claiming harm and inadequate protection for the birds and turtles 

that nest here. And in each case, where evidence was heard from both sides in the 

court, they were sent packing. Quite simply, their claims were refuted by sound 

science and law. All of this was at the expense of the American taxpayer. What occurred April 30th, 2008, in Judge Terrence Boyle’s court changed everything. 

It’s the Piping Plover that has become the ‘‘poster child’’ for these groups. The 

plover is a relative newcomer to CHNSRA. Every bird study conducted between 

1900 and 1959 show that it was not until 1960 that the first birds arrived in the 
99 

Park. Plovers nest independently of one another and not in colonies. They neither 

feed nor care for their young from the moment they hatch. They nest in areas that 

are subject to frequent overwash and frequently lose nests as a result. This has already occurred at CHNSRA in the 2008 breeding season, and not just with plovers. 

Predation has also taken its toll this year. 

The Piping Plovers that nest at CHNSRA are part of the Atlantic breeding population which is considered ‘‘threatened’’, not endangered. It is very important to understand that CHNSRA is on the extreme Southern edge of the Plovers breeding 

range which accounts for the historically low numbers within the Park. Most Plovers nest well north of the Park, from Virginia’s Eastern Shore to Newfoundland, 

Canada; with the majority of nesting occurring mid-range. 

I am an individual who has utilized this resource, this National Seashore Recreational Area, for almost three decades. And, like many, I am very familiar with 

this beach system—predicting structure changes, overwash, and the like comes as 

second nature. Collectively, we possess more first hand knowledge of the workings 

of the beaches and the wildlife at CHNSRA than any environmental group in existence. This has actually been proven in the field on more than one occasion. It is, 

therefore, no surprise that an Alberta, Canada Plover study contains the following 

statement: ‘‘human presence in an area can be a very effective form of predator deterrence.’’ (USFW 2000) Interesting as well is a statement by Tim Gallagher, editorin-chief of Living Bird magazine, published in the spring 2000 edition; ‘‘But the 

large number of people always present at beaches does have a remarkable taming 

effect on birds.’’ This reflects what we see daily as we visit our cherished beaches. 

There are 21 documented ORV related plover deaths in the entire United States. 

Twenty of these were committed by federal vehicles. In the 47 years prior to the 

Consent Decree, not one single plover death can be attributed to an ORV user in 

this Park. One hundred percent of plover mortality at CHNSRA has been a result 

of either storms or predation. A far cry from the 24 Piping Plover nests the Army 

Corps of Engineers destroyed recently in the name of floating two barges of alfalfa 

pellets down a tributary of the Missouri River. 

The Defenders of Wildlife (DOW), National Audubon Society, and the Southern 

Environmental Law Center (SELC) would have one believe that none of which I 

write in these pages is true—though it’s all in the public record. 

The Consent Decree deals also with other birds such as Black Skimmers, Common 

Terns, Least Terns, Gull-billed Terns, Wilson’s Plover, and American 

Oystercatchers. None of whom are threatened or endangered. The Consent Decree 

treats them as though they are, and at additional taxpayer expense. It also deals 

with the variety of sea turtles that occasionally nest on the Park’s beaches though 

now requiring full beach closures, unlike the Interim Strategy. 

Some ‘‘Inconvenient Truths’’ for DOW, Audubon and SELC include: Under the Interim Strategy (IMS) the 2007 nesting season was the most successful Plover breeding season in over 20 years. Currently, under the Consent Decree, a single Plover 

chick is given enough beach area to cover the decks of three U.S. Navy Super Carriers, the largest warships on earth (1000m). As such, in most American communities, a convicted child molester can live closer to a public school than a fisherman 

and his family can get to a plover. 

On a positive note, the Atlantic Piping Plover population is fast approaching the 

2000 nesting pair’s figure that makes them eligible for de-listing as threatened. The 

most recent counts show 1700 nesting pair. Just four years ago, the most accurate 

estimate was 1400 pair. This represents a rather dramatic increase in breeding 

pairs in a very short period. And by some recent estimates, the Atlantic Piping Plover will reach the 2000 nesting pair figure in approximately three years. Unfortunately, at the cost of even more taxpayer dollars, de-listing the Atlantic Plover population is probably going to be challenged in court. 

The environmental groups also claim a substantial drop in Black Skimmer and 

Gull-billed Tern numbers. What they don’t want you to know is that the bird count 

for the 2007 season shows a better than 20% increase in numbers. They know very 

well that the birds chose to nest on a newly re-created dredge spoil island, Cora 

June Island, which is within sight of the Park. In a survey of colonial waterbirds 

released by N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission in February 2008, in which Walker 

Golder, attorney for Audubon, plaintiff, and member of Negotiated Rulemaking participated, the Commission writes: 

An outstanding success story can be found on Cora June Island, located 

near Hatteras Inlet. This island disappeared during Hurricane Isabel in 

2003 but was rebuilt in spring 2007 during a dredging project by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Only months after rising from the sea, the island 

was home to one of the largest mixed tern/black skimmer colonies in the 
100 

state with good numbers of nesting adults that successfully fledged hundreds of chicks. 

The recent survey, which was conducted in spring 2007, is one of 10 complete coast-wide surveys conducted since the late 1970s to monitor population trends, distribution of colony sites and nesting habitat conditions. 

Data gleaned from the surveys help biologists make management and conservation decisions and prioritize research. The next water bird survey is 

scheduled for 2010. 

Never mind that environmental groups have sued to stop the creation of additional spoil islands which would provide substantial new habitat for the very birds 

they profess the need and desire to protect. 

In addition, they would prefer you to believe that night time driving on the beaches at CHNSRA disorients sea turtles. Hence the ban imposed by the Consent Decree. But they would have you ignore Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the 

northern 22 miles of beach on Hatteras Island. At Pea Island NWR, there is no 

beach driving and less than a dozen lights visible from the sea. Very few pedestrians frequent these beaches due to the difficulty in accessing them. And yet Pea 

Island has no greater turtle nesting success than ORV accessible beaches, but does 

have more false crawls, aborted nesting attempts, than the open beaches. They 

would also have you ignore the fact that Plovers don’t nest there either, in spite 

of the excellent beach conditions. 

Under the Consent Decree, if a turtle nests within the relatively minute portion 

of beach that’s still accessible by ORV, the Park Service is required to establish virtually the same nest enclosure as established within the Interim Strategy. Beach 

users may drive by, park by and fish by this clearly marked 10’ by 10’ enclosure 

at will. Until, that is, September 15th. On that date, the Consent Decree imposes 

full beach closures in addition to the procedures outlined in the IMS, making those 

areas impassable by vehicle or pedestrian. This is absurd and arbitrary. The Consent Decree clearly states that if a nest is approaching its anticipated hatch date 

(pre-September 15) NPS is to follow the same procedures outlined in the IMS, not 

including full beach closures. Which means that in spite of the additional ‘‘path’’ 

NPS constructs to funnel the hatchlings to the sea, the beach immediately outside 

this small closure is still accessible to both pedestrian and ORV use. So why is September 15th , the ‘‘magic’’ day for full beach closures under the Consent Decree? Because this is an arbitrary date by which perhaps some of the bird closures will have 

been reduced and the Consent Decree finally allows for ‘‘permitted’’ night driving. 

This is a thinly veiled maneuver to continue to prevent ORV access to the beach. 

If it was ok for me to drive by or park and fish right next to the closure on the 

14th, it should be just fine on the 15th. 

They don’t want you to know that at the best of times ORV users can only access 

less than 30% of the beaches at CHNSRA and that their ‘‘12% of the beaches affected’’ figure assumes 100% ORV access. This has not been true for many, many 

years. The truth is that well over 90% of the beach is currently closed either directly 

or by default. Areas bounded on both sides by closures are inaccessible even though 

they are technically open. They prefer to focus on ORV’s but the current closures 

prohibit pedestrian use as well. No entry means just that. 

It is, I think, ironic that as I labor over this communication, Defenders of Wildlife 

have just sent their members an e-mail dated June 15th, 2008 that describes success as a result of the Consent Decree. ‘‘Since some of the most sensitive areas were 

closed to vehicles, birds like the piping plover and the American oystercatcher have 

been bouncing back.’’ 

Plover numbers are almost the same as they were last year under the IMS. I don’t 

know about the American Oystercatchers (AMOY) yet except for the nest on the 

Pamlico Sound side of HWY 12 between Frisco and Hatteras villages. There, less 

than 150’ from the 55 MPH traffic, in plain sight, an AMOY pair feeds their young 

and raises them to fledge quite happily. 

They also write, ‘‘The emergency plan was developed to be flexible, with temporary closures that can be lifted and reopened to vehicles once wildlife is no longer 

using certain areas. Already, some areas have been reopened this season.’’ 

This ignores the rash of immediate closures that followed the April 30th signing 

of the Consent Decree. Because of the Consent Decree, anyone with a cell phone can 

call NPS, report bird activity and the Park Service is required to close the area for 

weeks at a time. All of the areas that have been reopened as of 6/26/08 were initially closed due to inaccurate and perhaps false observation. 

They would rather you didn’t think of them as parties to the lawsuit that has prevented the replacement of the Bonner Bridge, Cape Hatteras’ lifeline and only over 

ground hurricane evacuation route; a bridge with a safety rating of 4 out of 100. 
101 

The bridge in Minnesota that collapsed in 2007, killing many, was rated at 27. Since 

when do we so blatantly condone risking the loss of human life? The environmental 

groups have already announced that if the new bridge is attempted they will sue. 

The Consent Decree is an obvious attempt at changing a National Seashore Recreation Area into a private wildlife refuge. Which has so far, been successful at the 

cost of untold taxpayer dollars. Remember that the plaintiffs are consistently reimbursed their legal fees and expenses by the already strapped Park Service and DOI. 

You must also consider the cost of constant monitoring, flying in and housing of unneeded special event teams, additional, extensive new signage, additional vehicles, 

law enforcement and infrastructure. 

The impact of the Consent Decree on the economies of the villages bounded by 

the Park has been astounding. I know this first hand as it cost me my job. Conditions under the Consent Decree continue to fester as more Americans and foreign 

visitors discover that the experience they expected when they arrived at CHNSRA 

has been almost entirely compromised. Thousands have already cancelled their reservations or vowed not to return. And yet both the environmental groups and 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service continue to utilize the arguably inept 

Voglesong study as the foundation of their economic and visitor usage statements 

in spite of a government funded peer review that deems the study essentially worthless. The esteemed panel also regarded the data and its collection methods so flawed 

that further review of that data would be a waste of time. 

Dr. Michael A. Berry served as any Army officer in Vietnam in the 1960s. After 

returning to civilian life, he earned a doctorate in public health and worked in the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where as a senior manager and scientist, he 

served as the deputy director of National Center for Environmental Assessment at 

Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. During his 28-year career with EPA, he 

had extensive interactions with environmental organizations, local governments, the 

federal courts, U.S. Congress, universities world-wide, and institutions, such as the 

National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For more than 20 years, Berry, who lives in Chapel Hill, 

taught public health, environmental science, and business and environment courses 

at the University of North Carolina. He is currently a writer and part-time consultant, specializing in the evaluation of environmental quality and human health effects, environmental management strategies, and policy. 

He writes, 

There has been no opportunity for public participation, comment, and 

input with regard to this new ORV regulation. For any environmental regulation issued by the federal government, citizens have the right of public 

review and comment as provided by the Federal Administrative Procedures 

Act. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, citizens also have a right 

to know about and attend federal government meetings, especially when 

those meeting involve special-interest organizations trying to influence the 

government. Under the Freedom of Information Act, citizens have a right 

to obtain all unclassified information, such as scientific information and correspondence with special-interest parties, that is held by the federal government. 

The Consent Decree has changed the very nature of the Park. Though the environmental groups claim to want to preserve CHNSRA for future generations, I fail 

to see the value of a National Park that remains inaccessible during the spring, 

summer and fall, when the majority of Americans that visit the Park take their vacations at this time. And if USFWS gets their way by declaring CHNSRA critical 

wintering habitat for Great Lakes and Great Plains plover populations, though they 

openly admit they have no idea where the wintering birds originate, this will include the late fall and winter months as well. 

Preservation has been, so far, successful without court intervention and a draconian Consent Decree. What choice did Dare and Hyde counties and the various 

beach access groups have other than to consent? It came down to either accepting 

an agreement that they had no voice in and hoping for the best or face certain closure and the enormous economic impact that it would spawn. 

A Federal Judge is bound by law to render a fair decision based upon the merits 

of the evidence presented before the Court. But Judge Boyle declared his intention 

to provide the environmental groups exactly what they sought without hearing any 

evidence from either point of view and precluded the intervening parties, Dare, 

Hyde, OBPA, CHAPA and others from entering any evidence at all. This occurred 

within the first few minuets of the February 2008 scheduling conference. During a 

later hearing, in spite of being charged by law to consider the economic impact of 

the proposed closures within the Consent Decree Judge Boyle repeatedly declared 
102 

his lack of knowledge and understanding of CHNSRA, the villages contained therein, and signed the decree anyway. His obsession with closing Ramp 4 (Bodie Island 

Spit) as related in the transcripts of the April hearing is baffling. What the negotiations between the environmental groups and DOI promulgated can only honestly be 

referred to as a Decree of Forced Consent. 

CHNSRA was established first and foremost as a National Seashore Recreational 

Area. This is blatantly obvious when one reads the enabling legislation formulating 

and forever establishing the Park. 

Dated August 17, 1937 (50 Stat. 669), provides in part: 

Sec. 4. Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially 

adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, 

fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be 

developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan 

for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the 

physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area... 

On June 11th, 2008, Senators Elizabeth Dole, Richard Burr and Representative 

Walter B. Jones introduced S. 3113 and H.R. 6233. These bills, if enacted, would 

put aside the Consent Decree and return CHNSRA to policy and operation governed 

by the IMS. This would effectively take management decisions out of the hands of 

a few special interest groups and return it to the professional scientists and staff 

of NPS at the savings of millions of taxpayer dollars over the life of the Consent 

Decree. 

Already these groups assail the media and their members with tales of doom were 

these bills signed into law. Some claim that Congress has no business even dealing 

with this matter. I beg to differ. Congress established this Park for the American 

People as a whole and provided us with a place we have fought hard to preserve 

as the unique and dynamic place that Hatteras is; or was. For years, most of us 

have lived by the motto of the Outer Banks Preservation Association, ‘‘Preserve, 

Protect, Not Prohibit.’’ For example, to this day NPS does not employ ‘‘beach cleanup crews’’. We do this at our own time and expense. This hardly represents a user 

group with a penchant for environmental abuse. 

Congress reserved the right to change the nature of an established National Park 

for itself. And so there is no question as to whether these bills should be co-sponsored and enacted. 

16 U.S.C. Section 1a-1 states, ‘‘The authorization of activities shall be conducted 

in the light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and 

shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and 

specifically provided by Congress.’’ 

Surely this applies to forced closures as that constitutes an activity as well. Nongovernmental organizations have taken over scientific management of a national 

park, an activity (Consent Decree) not sanctioned by Congress in spite of the obvious ‘‘derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been 

established’’. 

Furthermore, the Federal Executive Branch Policy governing the selection, establishment and administration of National Recreation Areas by the Recreation Advisory Council circular, dated March 26, 1963 states: 

Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the 

dominant or primary resource management purpose. If additional natural resource 

utilization is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling the 

recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to 

it. 

I therefore urge every member of the Senate and House of Representatives to cosponsor and foster these bills into law. Sound science and the weight of law should 

never be substituted for supposition and misleading statements. 

Please help return our National Seashore Recreation Area to the true stewards 

of this resource. 

Authors Note: 6/28/2008 

I stated earlier that I was unaware of the current American Oystercatcher numbers at present. According to the most recent available NPS resource management 

field report, at this point in time last year the AMOY American Oystercatcher had 

attempted 41 nests and had 17 active or hatched nests. At this point in 2008, they 

have attempted 33 nests but have only 16 active or hatched nests. With the extensive closures, this can in no way be blamed on ORV drivers. This completely refutes 
103 

the claims of the aforementioned environmental groups’ press releases that the 

AMOY is some how miraculously ‘‘bouncing back’’ as a result of no ORV traffic. 

STATEMENT OF OREGON HUNTERS ASSOCIATION, WILSONVILLE, OR 

We are writing on behalf of the 11,000 member Oregon Hunters Association 

(OHA). We would like to express our opposition regarding the legislation that would 

add approximately 4,000 acres to the Oregon Caves National Monument (Monument) in southwest Oregon by transferring land from the U.S. Forest service to the 

National Park Service. It is our understanding that the original act creating the 

monument carefully considered what was needed to protect the Oregon Caves. The 

upper portion of the Cave Creek watershed holding the caves is included in the 400- 

acre monument. The proposed acres are in the neighboring Lake Creek watershed. 

The proposed addition would increase acreage of the monument by over ten times. 

The lands adjacent to the Monument are popular for deer and bear hunting, and 

for upland bird and turkey hunting. According to the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife during the year 2007, 5,505 deer, fall bear and fall/spring turkey hunters spent 39,155 days hunting in the Applegate Management Unit. We believe that 

taking away land from the Applegate Management Unit will in fact have an effect 

on hunters having access to this unit. 

In addition to the hunting issue, this particular acreage constitutes a much higher 

percentage of the ‘‘ high-quality’’ deer and bear habitat in the Applegate Unit, especially the portion that lies in Josephine County. The area is high elevation alpine 

meadow habitat that holds far more game than the lower elevation lands that have 

become choked with brush since forest management has been halted on Federal 

Lands. 

It is the opinion of OHA that this land transfer will have an adverse impact on 

hunter opportunity because of limited access to the Applegate unit, which will have 

an effect on the area’s economy that is dependent on hunter dollars and will also 

have an adverse impact on the habitat that sustains the wildlife in this area. 

It is for these reasons: hunter access to a very valuable hunting area, the economic impact of the area and habitat loss that OHA is opposed to this land transfer. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. PERRY, EMERITUS PROFESSOR, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, 

ON S. 3148 

My name is David Perry. I am an emeritus professor of ecosystem studies and 

ecosystem management from Oregon State University. I currently reside in Oregon’s 

Illinois Valley. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this matter. 

I strongly support expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary 

as specified in S. 3148. 

The Caves themselves are geologically unique and attract large numbers of visitors each year. As such, they provide a focal point for the development of an expanded tourist industry in the Illinois Valley, which is still recovering economically 

from the sharp reduction in timber revenues during the 1990’s. 

The Caves are located in one of the more scenic and botanically rich areas of the 

United States. The Monument currently has a few heavily used hiking trails, and 

expansion of the boundaries will allow for more which will almost certainly be well 

used. Polls taken at the Monument show that 75% of visitors would stay longer if 

there was more hiking available. People who view the caves and stay to hike will 

spend longer in the Illinois Valley, benefiting the local economy. 

Currently, the grazing lease adjacent to the Monument is contaminating the 

water supply. The rancher has been in negotiations with KS Wild and has agreed 

to retire the lease without a fight if the Boundaries are adjusted. There are no losers if the lease is retired, and 80,000 people per year with an uncontaminated water 

supply makes for a lot of winners. 

There is some concern that forest fire hazard won’t be dealt with if the NPS takes 

over the land. In fact, the NPS seems more likely to address this problem than the 

USFS, which doesn’t have the funds or personnel to deal with the many fuels reduction needs elsewhere on their lands. 

I summary, I wholeheartedly support expansion of the Monument boundaries. It 

is a positive step for the Illinois Valley. 
104 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN BONDESEN & BRIAN BARTON, WILLIAMS OR, ON S. 3148 

We are writing to express our strong support for support for the Oregon Caves 

National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S. 3148). We agree that too 

little protection exists for this important asset that enriches the natural environment here as well as the local economy. Please seriously consider passing the expansion contained in S B. 3148. It will benefit all Americans as well as Oregonians. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. BERRY, ON S. 3113 

I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit written testimony 

for the record in support of Senate Bill 3113. As a knowledgeable and concerned citizen, scientist, retired public administrator and university educator, I feel it is my 

professional and civic duty to make timely comment and to respectfully request that 

you pass Bill 3113 out of committee and allow a vote by the Senate. 

I am a senior citizen of the United States, residing at 16 Charrington Place, 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27517. I hold the following degrees: Doctor of Philosophy in Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Master 

of Science in Management from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business; both 

Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Mathematics from Gonzaga University. 

I am a combat veteran of the Viet Nam War and a retired Lieutenant Colonel, Army 

Engineers. In my civilian life, I retired from the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1998 after a 27-year career with that agency. For over 22 years, I served as 

the Deputy Director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment at Research Triangle Park, NC. During my EPA career I had extensive interactions with 

foreign, state, and local governments; the federal courts; US Congress; universities 

world-wide; institutions to include the National Academy of Sciences, the World 

Health Organization, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the major environmental organizations; private industry and trade associations. For more than 20 

years, I was an adjunct or full-time faculty member at the University of North Carolina where I taught environmental science and management courses in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, the Kenan-Flagler Business 

School, and Environmental Studies Program. I have in-depth knowledge of environmental sciences, especially those related to human health; and the federal environmental statutes, programs, and policies. 

I wish to state clearly for the public record that I have been for the past four decades and remain today and forever in the future, professionally committed to protection of the environment. I am primarily concerned with environmental conditions 

that affect the health and well-being of humans and with the conservation of natural resources that are essential components of a healthy environment. Given the 

ever changing environmental conditions brought about by growing human populations and expanding regional and global economies, effective environmental management is more essential now than ever before, but never at the expense of violating human and Constitutional rights. 

Responsible environmental management uses sound science and professional judgment that balances the human needs and rights of people with the needs to manage 

and sustain natural processes. 

As a public health and environmental management professional, I will always 

place the health and well-being of humans first and I will never accept a political 

philosophy that suggests people are less important than other species. Increasingly, 

‘‘environmentalism’’ places species ahead of humans. Sadly, this new-age philosophy 

has crept deeply into our political process. Humans should never be completely shut 

out or deprived of their environment so that other species should prevail or dominate. With a good understanding of science—knowledge of how the environment 

works—humans can make rational decisions and manage conditions so as to connect 

with their environment and at the same time provide for the existence of other species. 

The consent decree and settlement that Senate Bill 3113 is designed to overturn 

is properly criticized as ‘‘legislating and managing from the bench.’’ Because of the 

current consent decree and closures, the public is being pushed out and denied access to its treasured environment in which it too has a rightful place. The public 

is being denied a role and opportunity to suggest ways that an environment that 

it cherishes deeply can be effectively managed. The federal government, specifically 

the federal judiciary, and Departments of Interior and Justice, has failed in its duty 

to protect the Constitutional rights of the public to have a say in the management 

of its park environment. 

It is not the prerogative of a federal court to give exclusive decision-making and 

management rights to three well funded environmental activist organizations so as 
105 

to dictate how the general public and local community will access public land, in 

this case Cape Hatteras National Sea Shore, which has a guarantee and tradition 

of certain usage rights, including the right to access the beach with a motor vehicle 

(ORV). 

Traditionally, federal courts interpret and render opinions on the law and protect 

citizen rights as spelled out in the Constitution or the federal statutes. It has been 

long recognized that Congress and the courts do not have the technical knowledge 

or resources to manage national parks. That is why Congress established the National Park Service. Park Service professionals are responsible for making technical 

judgments and management decisions concerning the peoples’ park. 

The park management formula laid out in the consent decree is a new public policy. This new park policy was put together, in a rush, in about 10 days, behind 

closed doors, without any open discussion of scientific fact, explanation and justification of environmental management strategies, and consideration of the many needs 

and desires of the general public. 

In this court-approved settlement, the federal government agrees to respond to 

the dictates of three non-governmental special interest groups for the next three 

years. These environmental organizations answer to no one. Citizens cannot even 

challenge the Park Service or these non-governmental groups about this management policy. Essentially this consent decree takes the ‘‘Cape Hatteras National Recreational Sea Shore and turns it into a national maternity ward and nursery for 

5 bird species and turtles. 

Every legitimate public policy in our democratic society is based upon the Constitution. Public policy is intended to provide for the public good and the rights of 

persons, which begins with the protection of citizens and promotes conditions that 

enhance social well-being. Citizens have a right to be a part and have a say in the 

formulation of governmental policies that affect their lives. However, in this consent 

decree, we have public policy created by dictum; the public was simply directed to 

behave in special new ways without benefit of comment or review. 

In addition, the consent decree appears to grant special rights to species overlooking the fact that the Constitution grants rights only to persons. There is nothing 

in the Constitution that grants any right to a bird or turtle. 

Only the Congress of the United States can change this situation. 

In the April 30 court hearing, the judge acknowledged about five different times 

the need for public participation and review, but then, at exactly 1 hour into the 

hearing, he completely set aside any public concern or comment, and signed off on 

the settlement. The Outer Banks community interveners had no choice but to go 

along with the agreement or have the beach shut down completely. The court knew 

that and could have at least opened the settlement to include public hearings or directed the Park Service to promulgate a final management plan by a certain date. 

This consent decree is a classic example of how not to formulate environmental 

policy. It is good example of why good public policy must always be transparent, 

provide for public review and comment. The formulation of good policy takes 

thoughtful planning and organization, time for citizen interaction and review, including science review, much along the lines of what is currently being attempted 

with the regulation-negotiation process for a final ORV plan initiated by the National Park Service at the end of last year. 

No reasonable person doubts the need of an ORV management plan for the National Sea Shore especially in the face of regional population growth and improved 

highway systems onto the Outer Banks of North Carolina. 

After many years of Department of Interior foot-dragging, an ORV regulation-negotiation process was launched earlier this year. Under the direction of a highly experienced and professionally competent park superintendent, the National Park 

Service went out of its way to encourage public participation in ORV management 

for the Park. 

The environmental activist organizations, who now control a large portion of the 

park through consent decree, agreed months ago to take part, along with dozens of 

other citizen stakeholders, in a highly visible process of good faith regulation-negotiation. The primary purpose of the regulation-negotiation process is to provide factual information to the Park Service for an effective ORV management plan, provide 

equitable consideration of all citizen groups, and avoid costly litigation. Through 

their litigation, while sitting as major participants of the negotiation process, the 

environmental activists violated their agreement and indicated beyond any doubt 

they have no intention of good faith negotiation. 

Within the recent judicial review, no consideration was given to the desirability 

and benefits of a publicly transparent regulatory negotiation process or the breach 

of agreement and inequity of the lawsuit. The court has sent a very clear message 

that it does not care what the public thinks or has to offer in terms of the effective 
106 

management of the national park. This is an insult to citizens who have taken the 

time and their personal resources to attend and observe the regulation-negotiation 

meetings, sit at the table to negotiate in good faith, provide factual information and 

constructive comment to the Park Service. 

The consent decree has been shown to be ‘‘bad public policy’’ to the point of being 

a ‘‘public nuisance.’’ 

The public has been deprived of public participation and park access rights. The 

public has been denied access to a park and shoreline it owns. Particularly affected 

now and in the future are the disabled and elderly members of our society who cannot get to the beach even on foot. 

The consent decree has created enormous public anxiety and outrage. This new 

policy has been the catalyst for threats of physical violence, public disobedience, 

slander, and vandalism. 

Park Service professionals, many having years of specialized training and experience and decades of faithful public service, have been stripped of their professional 

prerogatives to make judgment calls and deal reasonably and equitably with the 

public they are sworn to serve. 

The consent decree has contributed to a distrust of government. Government officers are forced to arm themselves and enforce laws that they themselves find as disturbing and unreasonably constraining as the public. 

There are unnecessary tensions between citizen groups. Persons who have some 

legitimate special interest in bird or nature watching, or simply walking or sitting 

on an ORV free region of the shoreline, are now viewed as the enemy of the ORV 

or surf-fishing public. 

Especially disturbing to me as a citizen soldier of this nation is that the consent 

decree establishes a policy of retaliation and punishment for the general public 

when violations of the consent decree occur. Every time there is an act of vandalism, 

the Park Service is required, without any management discretion, to significantly 

extend boundaries and widen non-access areas. This serves no practical management need and is simply a ‘‘punishment’’, much along the lines of what I have personally observed and fought against in a police state on foreign shores. So as to prevent further denial of beach access, citizen groups have been forced to reach into 

their own pockets to offer substantial amounts of reward money for the identification of and conviction of those who break the law as dictated by the consent decree. 

Visits to the National Park and Outer Banks community are down. Visitor habits 

and plans are changing. Already hundreds of trips to the Outer Banks have been 

canceled or redirected to other parts of the country because of actual or threatened 

beach closures 

The local economy has been adversely affected by the consent decree. Already this 

policy has produced significant economic harm to small family businesses. For some 

businesses, revenues are down 50% or more and some employees have been laid off. 

Gas station, restaurant, and motel revenues are down. Some longtime residents of 

the island are planning to relocate. 

Risks of ORV and pedestrian accidents have increased as ORVs and pedestrians 

are forced into smaller areas. On certain days, there is limited public parking and 

unclear direction and access to the shoreline. The judge himself predicted this in 

the April 30 hearing. 

Damages to sensitive sectors of the Park environment will increasingly occur as 

ORVs and pedestrian traffic are channeled into smaller regions of the Park, overrunning the carrying capacity of those sectors of the ecosystem. 

The closure provisions of the settlement are not based on well-established science. 

The congress and the federal courts have repeatedly directed and ruled that before the government promulgates environmental regulations, there must be a hard 

look at the scientific basis for those rules. This administrative process principle is 

the ‘‘Hard Look Doctrine.’’ The science is ‘‘environmental criteria.’’ 

For the federal government to justify the need for resource management such as 

that found in the consent decree there must be a basis in recognized and published 

science. In this consent decree, there is a clear and gross absence of well-established 

scientific information underpinning all technical aspects of the closure rule. 

There is no peer-reviewed science to support the claims of species loss as the result of ORV traffic. That claim is not verified. Environmental activists have claimed 

the loss of species due to ORV traffic on the beach through press releases. 

That is not the way credible science is presented or reviewed. 

The court accepted that claim without open court hearing and examination of expert witnesses. 

Given the significant economic consequences and beach access loss to the public, 

prior to restrictive regulation, our federal government owes the public an answer 

to the following questions about the factual and scientific basis: 
107 

• What are the studies, science and protocols used as the basis for the regulation 

and its technical content? • Who are the specific authors of those science-based materials and who do they 

work for and represent—government, universities, environmental activists 

groups? • What is the area of expertise and what are their qualifications as researchers? • Where can the public acquire the raw or original data used to create the criteria 

or science base? • Were the studies on which the criteria based peer reviewed or published? • Who were the independent peer reviewers? • Where are written copies of their review findings? • What protocols were used to collect the data and were they ever peer reviewed? • Where, when, and how were the data collected? • What quality control system and statistical analysis process was used in data 

collection and presentation? 

Questions like these are always asked in open public science review before an environmental regulation as significant as this one is imposed upon the public. 

Congress should consider mandating that the National Academy of Sciences review the technical basis for park access closures such as those in the consent decree. 

The protection and production of bird species was the stated and widely proclaimed justification for court approval of the ‘‘closure’’ provisions of the settlement. 

Two species of birds, the Piping Plover and the American Oystercatcher, neither 

of which are listed by the government as endangered, are specified in the settlement. 

Data published by the federal agencies, prior to the consent decree, suggests that 

the piping plover is ‘‘recovering’’ on a regional and national basis. Data in no way 

suggests that additional beach closures at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore are 

essential for the recovery of the bird. The data indicate that piping plover populations everywhere are not in decline, as is repeatedly stated by special interest environmentalist organizations. Piping plover populations are growing or have at least 

stabilized even in the most extreme and remote regions of their range. The number 

of birds observed in recent times indicates that conservation efforts, without the 

consent decree, are working. 

Data collected and published by the Park Service in recent weeks in no way support the claim by environmentalists that ORVs reduce the productivity of birds. In 

fact, the data suggest that the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Interim Management Plan, prepared with public input and review in 2005, published in the federal 

register, has been effective at protecting birds and natural resources. 

The Interim Management Plan was set aside by the court and replaced by the 

consent decree and settlement that mandated closures. The closures of recent 

months have been of exorbitantly high cost to the public but have not contributed 

to an improvement in species production or safety. 

Along a 60-mile park coast, only seven piping plovers fledged this breeding season 

when beaches were closed to the public. The 15-year production rate for the piping 

plover is 0.66 chicks/pair. On July 25, 2008, the Park Service announced that this 

year’s Piping Plover production level is 0.64. This year’s rate is less that the rate 

when the Interim Management Plan was in effect and there was beach access by 

ORVs and pedestrians. Much is the same for the American Oystercatcher, out of 27 

birds that hatched only 10 have fledged. 

The huge closure distances in the settlement keep pedestrians and ORVs out of 

nesting areas. At the same time, the closures also provide for the proliferation and 

increased free movement of predators. In effect, the closures encourage predation. 

The majority of nests and hatched birds this closure season have been lost to predation, a few to storms, one at the hands of a university researcher. None has been 

lost to ORVs. 

For the reasons I have presented in this testimony, I respectfully request that the 

committee send Senate Bill 3113 to the full Senate to be voted upon and return full 

management of Cape Hatteras National Sea Shore to the National Park Service. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH VAILE, KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER, LEE HIPPY, 

CLEAN AIR & WATER, INC., DAVE WILLIS, SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS COUNCIL, 

JOSH LAUGHLIN, CASCADIA WILDLANDS PROJECT, ERIK FERNANDEZ, OREGON WILD, 

ON S. 3148 

Thank you for this opportunity to offer written testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Committee concerning S. 3148, the Oregon Caves Boundary Adjustment Act 
108 

of 2008. S. 3148 would expand the Oregon Caves National Monument, designate 

Cave Creek and its tributaries as a unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and also provide tremendous ecological and economic benefit through the permanent retirement of the Big Grayback and Billy Mountain grazing allotments. 

An expanded Oregon Caves National Monument (OCNM) would (1) include the 

surface drinking water supply for the 80,000 visitors annually; (2) protect additional 

surface and subsurface natural resources for current and future generations of 

Americans; and (3) provide local rural economic development opportunities. 

BACKGROUND ON THE OREGON CAVES NATIONAL MONUMENT

The OCNM is a 480-acre national monument located in the botanically rich 

Siskiyou Mountains. The monument is important to the economy and identity of the 

local area; the nearest town is named Cave Junction after the Oregon Caves. Despite being the second smallest unit (in area) of the National Park System, OCNM 

receives about 80,000 visitors annually,. Oregon Caves is the only cave system in 

the nation with its particular geologic history. It is one of the few marble caves in 

the nation available for public tours and is longest tour cave west of the Continental 

Divide. The cave tour route, with its twists, turns, climbs, descents, narrowness and 

length is one of the most adventurous cave tour routes in North America. 

A perennial stream, the ‘‘River Styx,’’ (an underground portion of Cave Creek) 

flows through part of the cave system. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state sensitive species such as Townsend’s big-eared bats and several cave-adapted species of arthropods found only on 

the national monument. While the 1909 proclamation that established the national 

monument focused on unique subsurface resources, the significance of the land surface above the cave must not be overlooked. Surface processes, especially through 

the exchange of air, water and food, closely influence many of the geological and biological processes within the cave. 

Recent discoveries indicate that this network of caverns possesses a significant 

collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. Grizzly 

bones that were found in the cave in 1995 were estimated to be at least 50,000 

years old—the oldest known from either North or South America. The monument 

preserves an excellent example of the Siskiyou Mountain’s primeval forest: an area 

with one of the highest percentages of endemic plants in the country. 

THE NEED TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES

When the OCNM was established in 1909, the small rectangular boundary was 

thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, scientific research 

and technology has provided new information about cave ecology, how it is influenced by its surface environment and related hydrological processes. The current 

480-acre boundary is insufficient to adequately protect this cave system and its 

unique contributions to local economies and our national heritage. The National 

Park Service proposed expansion numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949 and 

most recently in 1999. Most of the boundary adjustments proposed in S. 3148 are 

part of the 1998 General Management Plan for the monument when the National 

Park Service deemed the greater Lake Creek watershed suitable for inclusion in the 

OCNM. 

INCREASING VISITATION AND ADVANCING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The boundary adjustment proposed in S 3148 is needed for several reasons. 

A larger monument would increase the monument’s visibility and attractions. 

This could lengthen visit time of the OCNM leading to economic development in 

local communities. The average visit to OCNM is only 2.5 hours, and the most common question is, ‘‘What can we do after the cave tour?’’ Economic models indicate 

that if the 2.5-hour average visit were extended to a one-day visit, local businesses 

would significantly benefit from added tourist dollars. (Personal communication with 

Craig Ackermann, Superintendent, OCNM, February 20, 2007.) The OCNM is surrounded by excellent outdoor opportunities including hiking, horseback riding, and 

bird-watching. Adjacent recreation opportunities should be protected within the 

OCNM boundaries, and marketed along with cave tours. In addition nearby Forest 

Service campgrounds would be incorporated into the monument. 

The four trails within the current OCNM range from 0.7-3.3 miles. A number of 

longer trails around the monument offer visitors stunning views. Most of the trails 

weave in and out of the present OCNM boundary, and some connect with larger hiking trail systems including the Boundary and Pacific Crest Trails, giving hikers access to the Red Buttes Wilderness, Bigelow Lakes, Mt. Elijah (named for Elijah Davidson, the first Euro-American to see the Oregon Caves), and other popular areas. 
109 

Located in the Siskiyou Mountains of southern Josephine County, OCNM offers 

great potential for one of the state’s most struggling economic communities by nurturing a budding tourism and recreation economy. According to a 1994 Illinois Valley Tourism Assessment developed for the Oregon Economic Development Department, Oregon Caves is a ‘‘centerpiece attraction’’ for the tourism industry in the Illinois Valley area. 

Highway 199, stretching the length of the Illinois Valley, is a popular travel route 

between Redwood National Park and Crater Lake National Park, as well as a corridor for visitors that travel from the cultural center of Ashland to visit the Pacific 

Coast, as well as the OCNM. Surveys conducted in southwest Oregon and northern 

California describe visitors to this region to be primarily families taking a short vacation from the metropolitan areas of Portland, Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, 

and southern California (Smokejumper Base Interpretive Plan, undated). 

Highway 199 has an annual traffic load of about one million vehicles. In 1992, 

the state estimated that 289,000 vehicles, about one third of the vehicles traveling 

Highway 199, represented tourist traffic. Surveys conducted at OCNM indicate that 

average daily spending per tourist group is $90. These numbers indicate that more 

than $26 million in tourism dollars pass through the Highway 199 corridor annually 

(Letter to Oregon Tourism Commission from OCNM Chief of Interpretation Roger 

Brandt, 18 April 2004). Compared to neighboring northern California counties, 

where tourism dollars per tourist group range from $95-$154 (Sheffield, Emilyn, 

1998. Northern California Scenic Byway Network Newsletter, Chico, California), Josephine County clearly has room for economic development in this sector. 

A 1995 survey of visitors at the OCNM found that the top reasons for travel were 

viewing scenery, doing something with the family, and to learn more about nature. 

(Rolloff, David, Rebecca Johnson, and Bo Shelby, 1995). Similar studies have found 

that people come to Oregon to indulge in their interest in outdoor recreation, nature 

experiences and historic sites (Brandt, 2004). 

FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST MANAGEMENT

It has been implied that fuels reduction or other forest thinning operations would 

not occur in the adjusted OCNM boundaries (see the Statement for the Record of 

Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System of the U.S. Forest Service). We 

strongly disagree with this assessment. The National Park Service has a very active 

fire management and fuels reduction program on units where fire management is 

an issue. In fact, there is evidence that the National Park Service is more equipped 

and better funded to carry out fuels reduction projects in a timely and efficient manner due to larger budgets. 

Broadly, we agree with the Forest Service that fire and fuels issues are extremely 

important on the 1.8 million acres Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. However, 

the OCNM boundary adjustments area (4,070 acres), only constitutes 0.23% of the 

forest area, an immaterial portion of the landscape to affect fire behavior. We do 

agree that the Forest Service and Park Service should continue collaborating on fire 

and fuels reduction projects in this area and we support section 5(b) of the S. 3148 

regarding forest restoration as long as it is consistent with the National Park Service’s Organic Act. 

We also strongly disagree with Mr. Haltrop’s characterization of the efforts of the 

Forest Service in the OCNM area. We are very familiar with and support of these 

efforts by the Forest Service, but the facts presented by Mr. Haltrop are incorrect. 

Through a collaborative effort with support from the very organizations providing 

this testimony, the U.S. Forest Service produced the East Illinois Young Managed 

Stands project. This project looked at a 70,000-acre project area and identified approximately 4,000 acres for treatment. Only 100 acres were identified in the OCNM 

expansion area. No other treatments have been specifically identified to date. 

Moreover, the Forest Service has not yet determined if a timber sale or stewardship contract for this project will be utilized for this single thinning unit. A stewardship contract would not produce any revenue to the Treasury. Thus, it is premature 

for Mr. Haltrop to offer figures of the revenue that the Treasury or local counties 

would receive. This timber has not been appraised, laid out, offered for bid, contracted, sold or awarded. With the declining timber market due to housing slow 

downs, many sales on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest are not producing 

bids and many. While the Forest Service has plans to move forward with thinning 

in this single unit—which, again, we support—there are no immediate plans as Mr. 

Haltrop implies, nor would this single project solve all of the fire and fuels issues 

in the OCNM. We are convinced that the Park Service could perform the necessary 

management activities to restore the forests to more natural fire and fuel conditions 

on this small portion of the landscape. 
110 

GRAZING AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION

KS Wild is also supportive of the provision the bill to provide for the donation 

of a Forest Service grazing permit and a Bureau of Land Management grazing 

lease. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s Big Grayback Grazing Allotment 

(17,703 acres) overlaps about half of the 4,070-acre OCNM expansion area. National 

Park Service regulations would prohibit continued livestock grazing in the expanded 

national monument. Currently livestock that use the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment tend to concentrate in the Bigelow Lakes area, a designated botanical special 

interest area. 

Continuing to grazing livestock on the remainder of the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment is problematic for several reasons. First, as noted, livestock concentrate in 

the Bigelow Lakes area. Second, there are two other designated botanical areas 

(Miller Lake, 588 acres; Grayback Mountain, 591 acres) and the Oliver Matthews 

Research Natural Area, where livestock grazing occurs, contrary to the purpose of 

the protective designation. In addition, there are 3,553 acres of Riparian Reserves, 

where livestock need to be limited. Parts of the allotment are also in the Sucker 

Creek Key Watershed for salmonid recovery. Finally, much of the allotment is in 

the Kangaroo Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Additionally, surface water sources used for the OCNM potable water supply are 

located on national forest land. Water is piped to park facilities where it is treated. 

Actions affected drainage in the national forest—upslope from the monument—have 

the potential to impact the monument. Activities such as mining, logging, grazing 

and stock use, have the potential to contaminate the OCNM water resources 

(OCNM General Management Plan, 1999, 8). 

The 4,758-acre Bureau of Land Management Billy Mountain Grazing Lease is on 

the on the Ashland Resource Area of the Medford District BLM, approximately 3/ 

4 of a mile south of the town of Applegate in Jackson County, Oregon. The grazing 

allotment is leased by the same rancher that leases the Forest Service’s Big 

Grayback Grazing Allotment. The allotment is next door to the rancher’s base property. He uses the BLM allotment in the spring and the Forest Service allotment in 

the summer. 

The Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment includes the Enchanted Forest, a grove of 

oak, pine and maple, and a popular hiking trail. The allotment is interspersed with 

private land and there have been several complaints over the years by landowners 

dismayed by livestock on their property. Billy Mountain also includes habitat for the 

federally protected Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentnerii), a member of the Lily 

family. This rare plant is found in the Applegate Valley in and near allotment. Its 

growing season includes the period when livestock may be using the allotment. 

Expansion of the national monument makes continued grazing of the Big 

Grayback Grazing Allotment very problematic, which therefore makes continued 

grazing of the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment also problematic. Conservation interests (specifically Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center) and rancher Phil Krouse 

have an understanding in which Mr. Krouse will received compensation from KS 

Wild in return his donation of his federal grazing permit and lease to the federal 

government, as provided in the legislation. 

In the spring of 2008, the Forest Service issued a decision to continue grazing on 

the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment for 10 years. While not reducing the amount 

of livestock grazing for the allotment, the decision requires investments in fences 

and changes in management to prevent overgrazing of Botanical Areas and to evenly distribute livestock. To comply with its own forest management plan, the Forest 

Service requires a 1/4-mile fence must be built in the Bigelow Lakes area. 

Fencing Bigelow Lakes is controversial from the standpoint of both conservation 

and ranching interests because not enough of the botanical area will be fenced, 

fences are expensive, often fail and do not last. Fencing is a bad solution because 

of the high initial cost ($7,030/mile according to the Forest Service), as well as the 

high ongoing maintenance costs. Fences in forests and deep snow require endless 

maintenance; they don’t always work and are always an impediment to wildlife. The 

agency places additional requirements on the permittee to keep livestock out of certain areas. 

COSTS OF GRAZING

Both the ecological and fiscal costs of various alternatives to continue livestock 

grazing on the Big Grayback allotment are such that the best and least costly option 

is to simply buyout the grazing permit and not spend tax dollars endlessly to build 

and maintain fences. 

The annual income to the federal treasury from the Forest Service grazing permit 

and the BLM grazing lease is $118.13. The cost of preparing the Environmental As-
111 

sessment to update the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment is at least $100,000. On 

average, the Forest Service and BLM lose $12.26/AUM and $7.64/AUM respectively, 

(GAO, 2005. Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending 

Upon Agency and Purpose of Fee Collection) or an average of $8,174.80 annually. 

Based on the simple analysis above, the taxpayer would save an estimated 

$8,056.68 annually, by not grazing livestock in the two allotments. 

HUNTING

The expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument by 4,070 acres from 480 

acres to a total of 4,550 acres would result in an end of hunting pursuant to federal 

National Park System policy. This reduction in bear hunting opportunities is insignificant. 

The reduction of hunting area is insignificant. The proposed monument expansion 

is 4,070 acres, which is: 

• 0.55% of the 746,593 acres public (federal, state and county) land in Josephine 

County. • 0.48% of the 848,395 acres of land in the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife’s Applegate (#28) Wildlife Management Unit (all land between California border, US 199 and I-5). Most of this land is open to hunting. • 0.23% of the 1.8 million-acre Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest in Josephine, Jackson and Curry Counties, all of which is open to hunting except 

campgrounds, etc. 

This minor amount of bear hunting area is unnecessary as there are fewer bear 

hunters and more bears are being killed. 

The number of Oregon bear hunters has declined 21% from an all-time high of 

36,893 in 2001 to 29,077 in 2006. Yet, during the same time period, the number 

of bears killed increased 76% to 668 from 379 (‘‘Oregon General Bear Season and 

Harvest Summary’’ in 2007 BIG GAME STATISTICS, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Salem). 

STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, ON S. 3247 

I appreciate the opportunity to express the support of The Trust for Public Land 

for S.3247, a bill introduced by Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow providing 

for the designation of the River Raisin National Battlefield Park in Michigan as a 

unit of the National Park System. 

The Trust for Public Land (TPL) conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and natural areas, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. 

Since 1972, TPL has helped protect more than 2.1 million acres of land in 46 states, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada. Among the 

many land conservation projects we have worked on are historic sites such as Morristown National Historical Park, Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military 

Park and Monocacy National Battlefield, whose protection ensures that our nation’s 

unique history can be experienced by generations young and old, well into the future. 

S. 3247 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to work with willing donors 

of land in Monroe and Wayne counties in Michigan to acquire sufficient lands to 

create the River Raisin National Battlefield Park. Once established, the park will 

be only the second national park unit in the state’s Lower Peninsula and within a 

short distance from the population centers of Detroit and southeastern Michigan. 

The national battlefield park would commemorate the Battle of the River Raisin 

in January, 1813, during the War of 1812. Out of the hundreds of American participants in the battle during a campaign to retake Detroit from the British, only 33 

escaped death, injury, or capture. The defeat became a rallying cry for the rest of 

the war, which eventually assured American independence and sovereignty. 

There is a pressing need to protect lands whose history relates to the War of 1812 

period. In 1996 Congress accurately found that ‘‘the historical integrity of many 

Revolutionary War sites and War of 1812 sites is at risk because many of the sites 

are located in regions that are undergoing rapid urban or suburban development.’’ 

Nearly half of the 697 Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites studied in a National Park Service report delivered to Congress in September 2007 have already 

been lost. This vital legislation would ensure that a part of that heritage would be 

saved for future generations before it too is lost. 

We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that your subcommittee is examining this legislation today and support the efforts of Senators Levin and Stabenow to protect our 
112 

nation’s heritage lands. A companion bill, HR 6470, introduced by Congressman 

John Dingell, is currently under consideration by the House Natural Resources 

Committee and we hope that Congress can move to final passage of this legislation 

during the 110th Congress. 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to provide testimony in 

support of designating the River Raisin National Battlefield Park in Michigan. 

STATEMENT OF A RESIDENT OF SOUTHWEST OREGON, ON S. 3148 

I wish to urge the Committee to quickly report S. 3148 to the House with a recommendation for passage. As a resident of southwest Oregon, I am deeply concerned 

for the future of the Oregon Caves National Monument. The Monument at present 

is vastly too small, at 480 acres, to provide meaningful protections for the Monument’s watershed and the plants and animals it supports. 

At the time of the Monument’s establishment in 1909, far less was known about 

the science of ecosystem management, and the need to protect full ecosystems, not 

just individual features or species. The OCNM does not currently operate as anything resembling such a complete ecosystem within the present boundaries, and it 

therefore remains extremely vulnerable to impacts from cattle grazing and mining 

claims. Recognizing this issue, the Park Service has proposed a boundary expansion 

several times, most recently in 2000, and yet OCNM remains in its original, nonfunctionally small configuration. 

The southwest Oregon region has one of the greatest diversities of plant species 

in North America, but it does not currently enjoy protection commensurate with 

that significance. An expansion of OCNM would help to provide for that protection, 

and would address the immediate problem of cattle grazing in the watershed that 

drains to the cave system. This legislation would transfer 4,070 acres to the OCNM 

from the Forest Service. The land will enjoy far greater protection in the custody 

of the Park Service, as Forest Service lands remain vulnerable to development and 

mismanagement. 

Again, I urge the Committee to expedite the passage of S. 3148 to the full House 

with a favorable report. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL F. TORRENCE, WILLIAMS, OR, ON S. 3148 

I wish to state my ardent support for the Oregon Caves National Monument 

Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S. 3148). As you are aware, this valuable geological and ecological treasure presently consists of only 480 acres. This is not nearly 

enough to preserve the cave insofar as the surrounding and contributing watersheds 

are subject to activities such as cattle grazing that lead to substantial degradation 

of water quality. Insofar as Oregon Caves is a major economic boon to our area and 

are such an incredible natural resource, I hope the Senate will look favorably upon 

approval of SB 3148, embodying this minimal expansion previously recommended 

by the National Park Service. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on legislation vital to the economic 

and ecological health of our region here in Southern Oregon. 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OR, 

ON S. 3148 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the American Forest Resource Council’s 

(AFRC) testimony on S. 3148, the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008. 

AFRC represents approximately 90 forest products manufacturers and forest landowner companies in the west and the majority of the mill capacity in the Pacific 

Northwest. Our mission is to promote sustainable forest management on our federal 

and public lands. Many of our members have their operations in rural communities 

adjacent to the federal forests of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest where the Oregon Caves expansion is proposed. The management on these federal forest lands 

ultimately dictates not only the health of the forests, but also the health and mere 

existence of forest products companies and, in turn, the economic health of local 

communities. AFRC members are proud to provide thousands of quality, familywage jobs. We are also committed to being part of the solution to restore our public 

forests while providing Americans with quality wood products and renewable biomass energy. 
113 

AFRC has several concerns with this bill, but the most alarming is the potential 

harm to life and property if action is not taken to reduce the fuel loads in the proposed Oregon Caves expansion area. The area in question, the Oregon Caves National Monument and the proposed expansion area, is located in a box canyon with 

only one access road. This road dead-ends in the ‘‘box’’ of the canyon and is the only 

exit out of the canyon. Were a wildfire to start in this area, not only would the Oregon Caves area be at risk, but also the lives of many tourists who visit the Oregon 

Caves in the summer—coincidentally during the fire season. As elected officials and 

Oregonians continue to discuss the need to address Oregon’s declining forest health 

and introduce federal legislation addressing the issue, we would be remiss to ignore 

the potentially dangerous situation in the Oregon Caves area. 

The Oregon Caves expansion area is similar in nature to areas that burned in 

the 2002 Biscuit Fire. The proposed expansion would transfer 4,080 acres of dry, 

mixed conifer forests in the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest to the National Park 

Service (NPS). Forests in this area historically had a very frequent fire return interval (10-50 years) before fire suppression became prevalent. Due to decades of fire 

suppression, the forests proposed in this expansion have hazardous fuel loads that 

put them at the highest risk of catastrophic wildfire—condition class III. 

If or when fires start in this area, it would be nearly impossible to keep them 

as ground fires and they will almost surely turn into high severity crown fires similar to many areas burned in the Biscuit Fire. The Biscuit Fire burned 499,965 acres, 

mostly on the Wild Rivers Ranger District of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest, 

which is the same ranger district for the proposed Oregon Caves expansion. Half 

of the Biscuit Fire burned at high severity, killing at least 75% of the vegetation 

in its path. Further, roughly three-quarters of the area that burned was designated 

wilderness or roadless in which fire had been suppressed for decades and fuel loads 

were in the condition class III category. Density management and fuels reduction 

work must be done in this area to prevent unnaturally severe catastrophic forest 

fires and protect life and property. 

Thankfully, the Forest Service has taken the necessary steps to plan treatment 

in these areas. More than half of the acres in this proposal are included in one of 

two Environmental Assessments that approve density management and fuels reduction work, the East Illinois Valley EA or the Plantation Thin EA (see attached 

projects map). This means that these acres have been approved through the NEPA 

process, with no appeals or litigation, to be managed to improve forest health and 

reduce fire hazard. The NEPA work has already been paid for and the Forest Service is ready to move forward with work in these stands. These treatments are desperately needed in the proposed Oregon Caves expansion to lower the fires regime 

condition class from condition class III, where the fire regime has been substantially 

altered from natural (historical) ranges. If these treatments do not happen and a 

wildfire occurs, these stands would be at a high risk of losing key ecosystem components due to dramatic changes in one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, 

severity, and landscape patterns. 

It’s also important to note that 2,740 acres of the proposed 4,080 acres included 

in the Oregon Caves boundary modification proposal is classified as ‘‘Late Successional Reserves’’ or ‘‘LSRs’’ under the 1994 Clinton Northwest Forest Plan. These 

areas were set aside to create future late-successional forests (generally what most 

folks would think of as ‘‘old growth’’ forests) for late succession species, such as the 

Northern Spotted Owl. Fuels reduction and density management treatments, like 

those contemplated for portions of this area, were specifically envisioned under the 

Plan to speed the development of these characteristics while making stands more 

fire resilient to avoid stand replacing wildfire events. 

The American Forest Resource Council believes the Forest Service is best suited 

to manage the 4,080 acres proposed for transfer to the National Park Service. Historically and given the mission of both agencies, the Forest Service has the authority, ability and know-how to manage the forest appropriately by reducing the risk 

of catastrophic wildfire through fuels reduction while also helping to speed the creation of late-successional habitat. If the Congress deems that the 4,080 acres in 

question must be transferred to the NPS, AFRC believes at least a 10 year transition period should be legislated. This would allow the Rogue-Siskiyou Forest time 

complete the much-needed density management and fuels reduction projects that 

have already been through the NEPA process. Furthermore, AFRC believes the NPS 

should be given direction to continue to perform density management and fuels reduction treatments as needed in this area to maintain forests in an acceptable fire 

regime condition class into the future. Most importantly, this area must be treated 

to protect the monument and the many tourists that visit this beautiful part of Oregon. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. 
114 

The Monroe Evening News 

FULL SPEED AHEAD ON BATTLEFIELD PLAN (EDIT)

Copyright, 2008. Published: August 3, 2008 

Adding Monroe’s River Raisin Battlefield to the national parks system wouldn’t 

just benefit the Monroe area. It would benefit all Americans, furthering their love 

and understanding of U.S. history. 

That is the point area supporters of the battlefield proposal tried to hammer home 

in a hearing Wednesday before a Senate subcommittee. 

The hearing was called on short order and well ahead of schedule. No doubt the 

strong support of U.S. Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Dearborn, and Michigan’s U.S. senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, helped. And perhaps Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, who had his ear bent by local supporters while in Monroe 

County on other business last week, lent his support, too. 

We’re grateful for the expedited hearing. Still, it would have been nice to see the 

same sense of urgency among representatives of the national parks system at last 

week’s hearing. They recommended that action on the battlefield proposal be put off, 

possibly for two or three years, until a special resource study can be completed. 

Excuse us ... two or three years? 

That could be a problem. The 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 is just four 

years off. The Massacre of the River Raisin took place in 1813. 

Four years from now, if Americans are fired up about the bicentennial, they might 

just want to see key battle sites while on vacation. Some of them, in fact, might 

be stoked for a visit here after touring Gettysburg or other Civil War battlefields 

during the 150th anniversary of that celebration. 

But what will those visitors find here? 

If Washington sticks to the timetable laid out by the bureaucrats, the nation may 

miss a crucial opportunity. 

Naturally, the feds will want to conduct some studies. But what happened here 

in January, 1813, is no secret. 

At that time, what was then called Frenchtown was occupied by Canadians, British soldiers and their Native American allies. A band of 600 American troops forced 

them out. But a few days later the British counterattacked, retaking the settlement 

and forcing Americans to retreat. And injured Americans left behind by the British 

later were slaughtered by the Indians. 

That massacre sparked outrage. The resultant rallying cry ‘‘Remember the Raisin!’’ helped inspire Americans in the subsequent battles of the war. In last week’s 

hearing, Sen. Levin and William H. Braunlich, president of the Monroe County Historical Society, drew a comparison to the cry ‘‘Remember 9/11’’ that sprang up after 

the Sept. 21 terrorist attacks. 

Much of the spadework for a national park at the battle site already has been 

done—literally as well as figuratively. More than $5 million already has been spent 

on land acquisition, environmental cleanup, archaeological probes and other efforts. 

As Mr. Braunlich noted, 40 acres already are under title to public or nonprofit agencies, all of which are prepared to transfer title to the federal government. 

Another War of 1812 battle site, Fort McHenry in Baltimore, already is part of 

the national park system. The fort’s survival of a fierce British naval bombardment 

inspired ‘‘The Star Spangled Banner.’’ In addition to the fort, there is a visitors’ center with a gift shop and a small auditorium, a statue and a swath of green next 

to the water suitable for picnics. The River Raisin Battlefield doesn’t have a fort 

or a national anthem behind it. It does have a visitors’ center and auditorium. But 

it is historically important and surely worth a modest upgrade by the feds before 

the bicentennial. Local supporters want to make it a gift to the American people. 

Washington ought to accept the gift in a timely manner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LES AUCOIN, ASHLAND, OREGON, ON S. 3148 

I am writing in support of the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S. 3148), introduced by former colleague, Senator Ron Wyden. 

The National Park Service recognized the unique ecological and hydrological resources of the Oregon Caves when the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909. In the years that followed, many recognized that these resources required a larger boundary than the 480 acres covered under the inaugural designation. Unfortunately, repeated recommendations over the decades to expand the 

boundary were fruitless—including, I am sad to note, my own terms in Congress. 
115 

I am pleased that Senator Wyden has given us an opportunity to finally give this 

natural treasure the protection it warrants. 

In 1939, Monument staff recommended a boundary expansion to conserve the 

upper Lake Creek watershed, to provide greater recreational opportunities such as 

hiking and horseback riding, and to protect the geological and botanical features, 

and views of the rugged Siskiyou Mountains, one of the most unusual ranges in the 

lower 48 states. 

When that recommendation was unsuccessful, another boundary expansion was 

proposed in 1949. An interagency committee comprised of U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service sent a memorandum to 

the NPS Regional Director that stated, in part, ‘‘In 1936 an extension of Oregon 

Caves National Monument would have been highly desirable and far-sighted; in 

1949 it has become urgent.’’ 

Now comes this most recent recommendation for expansion, which was in the 

NPS’ General Management Plan of 2000. 

Clearly the time is past due to expand the Monument boundary from its current 

miniature 480 acres to an ecologically-based boundary that would protect the entire 

Cave Creek watershed. The relationship between the terrestrial surface and the 

caves cannot be overemphasized, yet it was barely understood, if at all, in 1909. 

Surface processes and the exchange of air and water closely influence cave ecology. 

If we want to protect the Oregon Caves in perpetuity, we must protect its watershed 

and the landscape above them. 

There are many extraordinary attributes of the Oregon Caves National Monument, including the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental 

Divide, the underground River Styx, unique geology, globally significant botanical 

diversity and a valued collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar and 

grizzly. 

In addition to the ecological and geological value of the Oregon Caves, the Monument provides an important economic engine for rural communities in Josephine 

County. The Monument is a destination for nearly 100,000 visitors a year, and is 

a critical source of revenue for local businesses in Cave Junction and the greater 

Illinois River Valley. An expanded Monument, well timed with its centennial anniversary celebrations, would bolster visibility and visitation in an area that benefits 

greatly from tourism. 

I am happy to see that S.3148 includes a provision to retire the grazing allotment 

in the watershed, which has caused water quality concerns, including contamination 

of the Monument’s drinking water supply, for decades. 

As a resident of southwest Oregon and a former Member of Congress who represented Oregonians for 18 years, I encourage the committee to advance this legislation as soon as possible. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY HARDHAM, PRESIDENT, CAPE HATTERAS ANGLERS CLUB, 

ON S. 3113 

Thank you and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the record. My name is Larry Hardham, president of the Cape 

Hatteras Anglers Club since 1999. The Cape Hatteras Anglers Club has just over 

1000 members (current on their dues) residing in 26 states. Many of our members 

live here on the Outer Banks and have volunteered for years in beach clean-ups, 

interpretive programs and as lighthouse docents here at the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. I personally have over 1000 volunteer hours with both Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (PINWR). 

I write you to express the concern of our membership about the effects of the 

court ordered decree and a request to return control of the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore (CHNS) back to the National Park Service (NPS) and its Interim Strategy 

via Senate Bill 3113. 

The United States Congress authorized the Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

Recreation Area in 1937 and 1941. The NPS has seen fit to drop Recreation Area 

from the name of the seashore without Congressional approval. Vehicular access to 

beach areas has been and is allowed due to the long distances from the few parking 

areas at the Seashore and has become required by visitors (especially the handicapped and elderly citizens). In 1978, through a public process an Off Road Vehicle 

(ORV) Plan was developed, but NPS never followed through with a listing in the 

Federal Register and we were left in non-compliance with two Executive Orders. 

CHNS implemented an Interim Protected Species Strategy in 2007 which also went 

through a very public process with an Environmental Assessment, and was issued 

a Biological Opinion by USF&W and a Finding of No Significant Impact by the 
116 

1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ‘‘Field Notes Volume 2, Number 5 Fall/Winter 2007’’ page 11 

at www.fws.gov/nc-es. 2 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field Summary week of August 10- 

16, 2007. 3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ‘‘Field Notes Volume 2, Number 5 Fall/Winter 2007’’ page 11 

at www.fws.gov/nc-es. 4Slide presentation given to Negotiated Rule Making Committee by Ted Simons, Department 

of Zoology, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC on June 17, 2008. 5 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field Summary week of June 19- 

25, 2008. 6Slide presentation given to Negotiated Rule Making Committee by Ted Simons, Department 

of Zoology, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC on June 17, 2008. 7 N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission News Release: www.ncwildlife.org/newslstories/ 

pg00lNewsRelease/020408lwaterbirdlsurvey.htm. 8 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field Summary under heading of 

Piping Plover Observations for weeks of April 3-April9, 2008 through June 19-25, 2008. 9 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field Summary week of August 10- 

16, 2007. 10 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field Summary week of July 17- 

23, 2008. 

NPS. Also in 2007, a Negotiated Rule Making Committee was formed to develop an 

ORV Plan for CHNS and comply with the 35 year old Executive Orders. In early 

2008, several members of the Negotiated Rule Making Committee (Defenders of 

Wildlife and National Audubon Society represented by a third member Southern 

Environmental Law Center) brought a law suit against NPS and USF&W based on 

the lack of an ORV Plan and the perceived lack of protection of sea turtles and selected birds under the Interim Strategy. The resulting court ordered decree imposed 

extremely large closures (such as 1000 meters on either side [or the equivalent total 

of over 21 football fields] of a piping plover chick where the Piping Plover Recovery 

Plan suggests only 600 meters), unwarranted night closures and closure expansion 

penalties for closure violations. The court ordered decree was issued without a public process, without considering the true economic impacts to the eight villages located within CHNS, the surrounding communities or NPS costs and manpower required for implementation. 

Please consider that the ‘‘only 12 miles of beach’’ closed (as these three environmental groups refer to this summer’s closures) are the most popular beaches in the 

Seashore and accommodated growing numbers of birds and limited public access 

under the Interim Strategy in 2007. In fact, according to USF&W the reproductive 

success in the entire state of North Carolina for piping plovers in 2007 was ‘‘one 

chick fledged for every four (4) pair of nesting adults’’1 while at CHNS under the 

Interim Strategy four (4) chicks fledged from six (6) pair of nesting adults2 or a significantly higher rate than the entire state.3 The Interim Strategy allowed for recreation closer to nesting areas. Breeding pairs of American Oystercatchers increased 

in 2007 as compared to 2006 from 23 to 244 but went down again in 2008 to 23.5

More Oystercatcher chicks fledged in the three year period ending in 2007 than the 

prior two three year periods.6 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission 

(NCWRC) reported that an island (Cora June Island) only one quarter of a mile behind Hatteras Village ‘‘was home to one of the largest mixed tern/black skimmer 

colonies in the state with good numbers of nesting adults that successfully fledged 

hundreds of chicks.’’7 Populations of gull-billed terns, common terns and black skimmers are down in the state and the seashore, but these three environmental groups 

have claimed that these populations of birds on this nearby island ‘‘do not count’’ 

because the island is not technically within the boundaries of CHNS. This does not 

make sense, is poor birding and biased bad science. 

The court ordered decree was signed late in the day on April 30, 2008 and piping 

plover adults were already at CHNS and in fact had started nesting.8 NPS data indicates that the eleven breeding pairs that ultimately nested at CHNS in 2008 were 

already here on April 30th and were a result of successes last year. The 2007 Interim Strategy allowed 67%9 of piping plover breeding pairs to fledge a chick but 

this year under the court ordered decree only 64%10 of breeding pairs fledged a 

chick. 

This nesting season found even more black skimmers than last year reproducing 

on the spoil island (Cora June Island) one quarter of a mile behind Hatteras Village. 

Neither the NPS nor the NCWRC counted birds, nests or chicks on Cora June Island in 2008 but photos show the island to be covered with adult birds and chicks. 
117 

11Slide presentation given to Negotiated Rule Making Committee by Ted Simons, Department 

of Zoology, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC on June 17, 2008. 12 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field Summary week of August 

3-9, 2007. 13 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Resource Management Field Summary week of July 17- 

23, 2008. 14 Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 Sea Turtle Annual Report page 13 under caption: 

False Crawls 15 Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 Sea Turtle Annual Report page 8 and 2005 and 2006 

Annual Reports 16See Chart #2 attached 17Personal communication from Dennis Stewart, Chief Biologist, Pea Island national Wildlife 

Refuge 18Personal communication from Dennis Stewart, Chief Biologist, Pea Island national Wildlife 

Refuge 19www.nature.nps.gov/stats 

In 2007 twenty-four (24) breeding pairs11 of American Oystercatchers hatched 15 

nests and 29 chicks.12 In 2008 twenty-three (23) breeding pairs hatched 15 nests 

and only 26 chicks.13 Thus the court ordered decree produced fewer breeding pairs 

and fewer chicks from the same number of nests. This result was in spite of significantly larger closures which prevented recreational use of the beaches involved. 

Some closures were even put in place for pairs that never nested due to the fact 

that they were not of breeding age. 

According to CHNS Resource Management Weekly Field Summary; July17, 2008 

to July 23, 2008 there have been 92 sea turtle nests laid and 82 false crawls at Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore producing a false crawl to nest ratio of 0.89:1. This is 

a good ratio but higher than that at CHNS in six of the last ten years. One of the 

goals of the Interim Strategy Biological Opinion is for this ratio to be under a 1.3:1. 

The court ordered decree imposed a ban on night time driving between 10:00 PM 

and 6:00 AM in an effort to reduce false crawls using the undocumented assumption 

that ORV headlights cause false crawls at the Seashore. Not only are there no eye 

witness reports of headlights at the sites of false crawls at CHNS, but at least 24 

of last year’s false crawls were inside the Cape Point piping plover closure14 (where 

no human activity is allowed day or night). The false crawl to nest ratio at CHNS 

for the last ten years (1998-2007) is 0.94:1 which is under the accepted normal ratio 

of 1:1.15 This ten year ratio at CHNS of 0.94:1 is even lower than that of Cape Lookout National Seashore (0.95:1)16 and CHNS has eleven miles of village ocean frontage, three ocean piers and far more visitors. Furthermore, Pea Island, which is the 

northern 13 miles of Hatteras Island, and has no ORV use, day or night or pedestrian use at night, had more false crawls than nests last year and as of July 21, 

200817 has a higher false crawl ratio this year (0.94:1) than here at the CHNS. The 

assertion that night time ORV use causes false crawls at the CHNS is just not born 

out by the facts. The 92 nests laid at CHNS so far this year is more than last year 

but nesting activity all along the coast of NC has also increased, and in fact Pea 

Island has more nests as of July 21, 2008 than it has had since 1995.18 In summary, 

the court ordered decree is not responsible for a lower false crawl ratio or more 

nests in 2008. 

According to the NPS visitation website19 the total recreation visits at all NPS 

facilities through June 2008 are down 1.20% while visits at CHNS are down 14.5%. 

Such a reduction in the numbers of visits equates to economic losses, loss of jobs 

and tax revenue for local, state and federal governments. The Outer Banks has been 

fairly immune to downturns in the economy in the past, and thus the decrease in 

visitors this year has been dramatic and many businesses feel that it will get worse 

in the next two years if the court ordered decree remains in effect. 

As you can see the increases in fledged chicks of all species or sea turtle nesting 

has not been produced by the court ordered decree and the economy has been very 

negatively impacted. With this in mind please vote for Senate Bill 3113 and allow 

the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to again be managed by the National Park 

Service and not the courts. 

Thank you. 

[Charts have been retained in subcommittee files.] 
118 

1Lawrence R. Liebesman is a Partner in Holland & Knight’s environmental practice and has 

over 30 years experience as an environmental lawyer and litigator including 11 years as a Senior Trial Attorney at the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. He 

is the co-author of the Endangered Species Deskbook published by the Environmental Law Institute. 2See, for example, Testimony of Derb Carter on Senate Bill 3113, Southern Environmental 

Law Center (July 30, 2008)(‘‘Carter Test.’’). 

STATEMENT OF DARE AND HYDE COUNTIES, NC AND THE CAPE HATTERAS ACCESS

PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, ON S. 3113 

LAWRENCE R. LIEBESMAN,1 PARTNER, HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP

We are outside counsel to Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, and to the 

Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance (‘‘CHAPA’’) (collectively ‘‘Intervenors’’) 

in Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. National Park Service, No. 2:07-cv-00045 BO 

(E.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2008). The following information supplements the July 30, 2008 

testimony of Warren Judge, Chairman, Dare County Board of County Commissioners on S.3113. Our submission today is also intended to address comments of 

those opposed to the bill.2

1. Intervenors Dare County, Hyde County, and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation 

Alliance reluctantly signed the Consent Decree as the ‘‘lesser of two evils’’ 

While it is true that the Counties and CHAPA signed the consent decree on April 

30, 2008, it is a mischaracterization to call that signing a ‘‘willing’’ participation. 

When caught ‘‘between a rock (the consent decree) and a hard place’’ (the uncertainty of an injunction), any reasonable group will take the lesser of two evils—and 

that is exactly what the Intervenors did by reluctantly signing on to the consent decree. 

To understand Intervenors’ dilemma, you must first understand the context in 

which the consent decree was entered. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit by Plaintiffs, 

the federal judge who entered the consent decree stated in two written opinions that 

as a result of an executive order entered by President Nixon, driving in the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore (‘‘Seashore’’) was illegal until an off-road vehicle 

(‘‘ORV’’) management plan was implemented by the National Park Service (‘‘NPS’’). 

Based upon those findings, Intervenors were faced with the prospect of the entire 

Seashore being closed until the negotiated rulemaking process is completed in 2011. 

With the underlying possibility of a total Seashore closure, Plaintiffs filed suit in 

October, 2007, and then began negotiating with the NPS on the terms of an injunction for the Seashore. Even after the court permitted Intervenors to intervene in the 

suit, they were not provided with the full settlement proposals exchanged between 

Plaintiffs and NPS until the basic framework of an injunction had been agreed upon 

by the Plaintiffs and the NPS. In reality, Intervenors only first saw the actual proposed consent decree at the ‘‘eleventh hour’’.with literally a few days left before the 

decree was to be filed with the court and after the other parties had been negotiating ‘‘behind closed doors’’ for weeks. Intervenors protested the secretive nature of 

the negotiations to the court at the preliminary injunction hearing: ‘‘Our real concern, unfortunately, is that we feel that most recently we’ve been cut out of what 

we think have been ongoing settlement discussions . . . .’’ Hearing on Mot. for 

Prelim. Injunct., Tr. at 17 (Apr. 4, 2008). Indeed, on Friday April 18, the day that 

the proposed decree was to be filed with the court, the Government only gave Intervenors thirty minutes to agree to changes worked out between the Government and 

Plaintiffs regarding buffer distances; if not, the decree would be filed without them 

and would include buffer distances three times larger than in the Interim Plan approved in July 2007 after a lengthy public process. If the Intervenors refused to 

sign, they would be faced with the worst-case possibility of the court closing the entire Seashore. At best, if the court accepted the decree proposed by the Government 

and Plaintiffs—with the significantly greater buffer distances—the Intervenors 

faced having to challenge the decree in court—a ‘‘daunting’’ prospect, given that the 

NPS had refused to contest Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and the 

court’s apparent inclination to issue such an injunction. 

Thus, Intervenors, representing the interests of the people and organizations most 

affected by the closures, decided to sign a decree that was essentially negotiated 

without any meaningful public input and was the lesser of all evils; Intervenors simply could not take the risk of a full Seashore closure. The result was summed up 

by Allen Burrus, Vice Chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners: ‘‘Am 

I happy with this plan? No.’’ (Apr. 16, 2008), available at http://www.co.dare.nc.us/ 

Announce/CHORV/BeachDrivingProposal.htm. 
119 

3The FONSI on the Interim plan stated that ‘‘The USGS protocols were prepared under an 

interagency agreement for the Seashore by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS is 

the scientific research agency for the Department of Interior. The information and recommendations presented in the protocols represent the professional opinion of scientists that analyzed 

and interpreted the scientific data associated with protected species found at the Seashore. In 

addition to the Protocols, many other factors such as federal laws and mandates, NPS management policies, public input, practical field experience, and other scientific opinion were considered in the development of the strategy/EA.’’ FONSI/EA at 5, n.2. (emphasis supplied). 4 As Mr. Walton noted, ‘‘an enormous amount of effort was expended reviewing the scientific 

literature . . . studying the local seashore conditions and negotiating with agencies, user groups, 

and interested parties to develop this detailed plan.’’ Walton Dec. at ¶ 19. 5Mr. Walton disputes the use of the USGS protocols for projected species, stating that it ‘‘is 

not biologically warranted and will not necessarily provide protective measures for piping plovers.’’ Walton Dec. at ¶ 26. These protocols ‘‘do not consider changes in suitable habitat from year 

to year or if the habitat is occupied by piping plovers.’’ Id. 

2. Scientific studies do not prove that the Interim Plan was harmful to wildlife 

Opponents of S.3113 would have the subcommittee believe that previous NPS 

management, including the Interim Plan, combined with ORV use was the root 

cause of all wildlife population fluctuations. See, e.g., Carter Test. at 3 (July 30, 

2008)(first year of Interim Plan ‘‘was one of the worst bird breeding seasons on 

record’’). This Subcommittee should know that experts refute those assertions. 

In a detailed statement filed with the court, Intervenors’ biologist Lee Walton 

stated that ‘‘all measures of nesting success recorded by the National Park Service 

was better for the last 3-year average when compared to the previous 13-year average. I believe that the recent success of piping plovers on Cape Hatteras is due to 

the implementation of beach closure similar to the protective measures’’ in the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy. Walton Dec., Summary at 8 (Mar. 

12, 2008)(Attachment 1). Predation and weather losses are the most importance factors regulating population increase and nest success at the Seashore. Id. 

As Mr. Walton noted, the Atlantic Coast population of the threatened piping plover, for example, has more than doubled and has averaged a 5% annual population 

increase between 1986 and 2007. Walton Dec. at ¶ 10. NPS data show that piping 

plover numbers are increasing in North Carolina. Id. at ¶ 11. For other colonial 

waterbirds, it appears that the populations are neither trending upward or downward but, rather, simply shifting to nearby shoals and islands. Id. at ¶ 16. 

3. In issuing the Interim Plan, the NPS took into account the United States Geological Survey Protocols and properly balanced those Protocols with other legal and 

practical considerations 

Opponents of S.3113 claim that the restrictions in the consent decree ‘‘are also 

based on the best available science, including the United States Geological Survey 

(‘‘USGS’’) recommendations.’’ See Carter Test. at 5. These opponents neglect to mention that the Interim Plan’s Finding of No Significant Impact/Environmental Assessment (‘‘FONSI/EA’’) actually referred to those Protocols but noted that the NPS had 

to take into account broader policy goals.3 Indeed, the Interim Plan was developed 

after a two-year investigative process that took into account the USGS protocols, 

public comments, the NPS’s field experience during the 2006 breeding season, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (‘‘FWS’’) Biological Opinion, NPS professional judgment, and other information. FONSI/EA at 4-5.4 The FWS’s issuance of a Biological 

Opinion, concurring with the Interim Plan under the Endangered Species Act, is especially noteworthy in that, as the expert federal agency, the FWS was in the best 

position to object to the Plan as not in compliance with the USGS protocols.5 Further, the NPS has been implementing the conditions of the FWS Biological Opinion 

and has even been conducting renewed consultation to address FWS’s issues. Yet 

Plaintiffs chose to litigate despite the ongoing orderly and scientific process underway between the NPS and FWS. 

4. Recent biological data does not support the assertion that the consent decree is 

benefiting wildlife 

Further, recent biological data does not support the claim by opponents of S.3113 

that the consent decree is already having a positive effect of wildlife. Carter Test. 

at 6. We attach a letter from Larry Hardham, president of the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club that updates and supplements his comment letter of July 27, 2008, to 

Chairman Akaka (please see Attachment 2—additions to his prior letter are underlined). Mr. Hardham notes that any piping plover ‘‘success’’ was due to actions taken 

last year. That is, by April 30, the date the consent decree was signed, plover adults 

were already at the Seashore and had already established nests. Hardham Suppl. 

Letter at 3. Last year, under the Interim Plan, 67% of piping plover breeding pairs 

fledged a chick but this year under the court-ordered decree only 64% of breeding 
120 

6Further, opponents of S.3113 cite to a 2008 government-contracted study concluding that 2.7 

to 4 % of the approximately 2.5 million visitors to the Seashore are ORV users and that ‘‘9 % 

of the visitors to the Seashore would return more often if driving were restricted on the beaches.’’ Carter Test. at 7. However, that data was taken from pages 2-14 and 2-17 of an unpublished study—the ‘‘Cape Hatteras National Seashore Visitor Use Study,’’ by Dr. Hans Vogelsong 

(Aug. 2003)—that was discredited by peer reviewers as part of the ongoing Negotiated Rulemaking process. The peer reviewers stated that Vogelsong could not ‘‘provide a sound scientific 

basis for estimating ORV use at [the Seashore] or the economic impact of visitor spending assopairs fledged a chick. Id. Further, Mr. Hardham notes that the slight increase in 

the number of fledged plover chicks this year was more likely due to the fact that 

the Seashore hired a full time trapper for predator control, rather than using the 

services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture trappers for several weeks as was 

done in 2007. Hardham Suppl. Letter at 3. 

Despite the overall positive trends cited earlier, the American Oystercatcher and 

turtle have less-than-positive news. Last year, 24 breeding pairs of American 

Oystercatchers hatched 15 nests and 29 chicks with 14 nests lost to weather and 

predation; this year—after the consent decree—23 breeding pairs hatched 15 nests 

and only 26 chicks with 19 nests lost to weather and predation. Hardham Suppl. 

Letter at 3. ‘‘Thus, the court-ordered decree produced fewer breeding pairs and 

fewer chicks from the same number of nests. This result was in spite of significantly 

larger closures which prevented recreational use of the beaches involved.’’ Id. For 

turtles, the consent decree has not led to a lower false crawl ratio or more nests 

in 2008. Id. at 4. 

Mr. Hardham’s supplemental letter also addresses the claim that the consent decree helped increase the numbers of nesting colonial shore birds such as black skimmers. Carter Test. at 7. He notes that ‘‘both common terns and black skimmers 

nested within the actual boundaries of [the Seashore] in 2008 but all of these nests 

were within the piping plover pre-nesting closures of the Interim Strategy or within 

least tern closures and thus their return to [the Seashore] can not be attributed to 

the Consent Decree.’’ Hardham Suppl. Letter at 2. 

Further, Plaintiffs incorrectly assume that the consent decree was necessary because ORV use and related public uses directly cause the decline in wildlife populations over the years. In fact, the data demonstrates that more plover chicks 

fledged on North Carolina beaches with heavier ORV use than on North Carolina 

beaches with light ORV use. Walton Dec. at ¶ 14. 

5. The consent decree is having a negative effect on the area’s economy 

While Plaintiffs claim that the consent decree only affects ‘‘small stretches of the 

Seashore’s beaches,’’ Carter Test. at 5, the fact is that those small stretches include 

some of the ‘‘most popular beaches in the Seashore’’ and thus have impacts disproportionate to their size. See Hardham Suppl. Letter at 2. Tourism is suffering 

in part because vacationers have the impression that all beaches are closed down. 

In fact, the six most popular fishing areas in the Seashore—and arguably on the 

entire east coast—were shut down earlier this summer. Testimony of NPS Deputy 

Director Daniel Wenk (July 30, 2008). Bait and tackle shops and other businesses 

are reporting a sharp drop in sales. The Virginian-Pilot (Aug. 4, 2008), available at 

http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/08.04.2008- 

VirginianPilotEditorialSlamsLegislationWhatTheySaidAndWhatWeSay.html. 

Even if it were shown that the consent decree has had no economic impact, the 

true measure will be next year’s sales figures. Since this summer’s vacation bookings were made long before the consent decree was signed, disappointed vacationers 

would have been unable to get out of their rental contracts. See Irene Nolan, Commentary: Virginian-Pilot editorial slams legislation: What they said and what we 

say, available at http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/08.04.2008- 

VirginianPilotEditorialSlamsLegislationWhatTheySaidAndWhatWeSay.html (Aug. 

4, 2008). As Mr. Hardham notes, ‘‘Many of this year’s cottage renters who became 

unhappy and disappointed due to the extensive consent decree mandated closures 

(which produced poor results and completely closed the most popular sites in the 

Seashore) may not return in future years.’’ Hardham Suppl. Letter at 4. 

Further, it is undisputed that there was a significant decline this year in visitation at the Seashore in June, the period when expanded closures were in effect. This 

decline was far greater than the overall decline at other NPS facilities during a comparable period. ‘‘According to the NPS visitation website, the total recreation visits 

at all NPS facilities through June 2008 are down 1.20% while visits at [the Seashore] are down 14.5%. Such a reduction in the numbers of visits equates to economic losses, loss of jobs and tax revenue for local, state and federal governments.’’ 

Hardham Suppl. Letter at 4.6
121 

ciated with ORV use.’’ Jim Gramann, PhD, Summary of Reviewer Comments on Two Reports 

Analyzing ORV use at Cape Hatteras national Seashore at 2. 

6. The Interim Plan will protect the Seashore’s interests better than the consent de- cree 

The resources of the Seashore are more than its wonderful collection of birds, fish, 

and sandy beaches. Indeed, the Seashore encompasses the people whose towns and 

livelihoods have evolved along with the Seashore. Those people and towns survive 

on tourism, and tourism is driven by ORV use. As NPS Deputy Director Wenk correctly pointed out in his testimony before this Subcommittee, ORV use predates the 

1937 authorization of the Seashore. Wenk Test. at 2. See also, Warren Judge Test. 

at 1-6 (tracing the legislative history that created the Seashore with an eye towards 

the recreational and commercial benefits historically enjoyed by the residents of the 

Outer Banks). 

In fact, even the Seashore’s Superintendent recognizes the financial strain that 

the consent decree has placed without clearly demonstrating that the decree has actually led to increased success rates for protected species. In a recent Coastland 

Times front page story, Superintendent Murray noted that ‘‘For the 2008 nesting 

season in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, some critical numbers are up but 

it is impossible to attribute increases only to the implemented consent decree.’’ Mary 

Helen Goodloe-Murphy, COASTLAND TIMES (Aug. 12, 2008); see Attachment 3. 

He then noted that ‘‘implementing the consent decree through August 6 has cost 

$316,117 above what would have been spent operating under the Interim Strategy. 

The Seashore will bring in another law enforcement team to help with Labor Day 

at an estimated cost of $37,000.’’ Id. 

Obviously, everyone cares about the Seashore’s natural resources—especially the 

local citizens who ultimately make their living dependent upon its economic and environmental health. Maintaining public support and confidence is critical to achieving these goals. Unfortunately, the consent decree severely undermines critical local 

support achieved through the lengthy and open public process of adapting the Interim Plan. It has also imposed a substantial additional financial strain on the National Park Service without any demonstrable benefit to resources of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA ULLIAN, GRANTS PASS, OR, ON S. 3148 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

I’ve lived and worked in southwest Oregon since 1947. I began hiking in the area 

of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests encompassed by the Big Grayback 

Grazing Allotment and the area of the proposed expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument in the 1960’s. This is one of those special places that draw people 

from across the county and from many backgrounds. 

The often-eloquent notes of appreciation left in the Mazama box—placed on Mt. 

Elijah’s summit each season by the National Park Service staff—were evidence of 

this. The ‘‘box,’’ a large plastic jar with paper and pencils, was an informal guest 

book for the mountaintop. Hikers wrote out their thoughts as they surveyed the 

360-degree view of the wild country laid out before them. Most of the notes—left 

over several decades—were about the beauty of the area. Many also wrote in dismay 

or anger about the growing number of clearcuts in the watersheds below and the 

impacts of cattle grazing. 

This beautiful high elevation land of peaks, forests and meadows is entirely suitable for inclusion into the National Park system as part of the Oregon Caves National Monument—to be restored and managed under the Park Service’s conservation mandate. It’s certainly not suitable ‘‘rangeland’’ as the Washington DC office 

of the National Forest Service would have you believe in their testimony (see below). 

When I first began hiking the area there was a drift fence at the top of the watershed divide to prevent cattle from accessing the Lake Creek watershed and the 

springs and wet meadows above Bigelow Lakes that serve as the headwaters for 

Lake Creek, the Oregon Caves National Monument’s drinking water source. The 

presence of the fence also provided a cattle-free respite for those hiking the high 

backcountry of the Siskiyou. Unfortunately, this ridge top fence was abandoned. 

I’ve hiked on trails through the high mountain meadows, literally ankle deep in 

fine choking dust, which coated everything, because the cattle also used the trails. 

After long hot dusty stretches of trail, I’ve found that the cattle had fouled the only 

available clean water in miles—the cold springs emanating from the side of Craggy 

Peak—and churned the surrounding wet areas into a mud bog. When cross county 
122 

1 Consolidated comments submitted on March 8, 2008 by the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service concerning the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s Environmental Assessment for the Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update (on file with the author). 

skiing in the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area, I’ve had to avoid the meadows—where 

the best snow and views were—because of the dangerous tangle of downed wire drift 

fencing hidden beneath the snow. Even in the summer the un-maintained drift fence 

was a hazard. It didn’t prevent the cattle from reaching the lake but did prevent 

recreationists from fully enjoying the area. The trampling, cow feces and flies, often 

made inviting shady areas above Bigelow Lakes inhospitable places to camp or rest. 

We camped on rock outcrops instead—where cows didn’t go. 

My photographs of the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area and the Craggy Mountain 

Research Natural Area have been published and used in efforts to conserve the outstanding ecological, scenic and recreation values of this part of Klamath-Siskiyou 

Bioregion. I’ve also photographed the results of the Forest Service’s ‘‘single-use’’ cutslash-and-burn management of the watersheds and forests surrounding the tiny Oregon Caves National Monument. I’d be happy to provide the National Parks Subcommittee with photos, both demonstrating the overall beauty of the area and the 

deleterious effects of past Forest Service management. 

Beginning in 1987, I’ve participated in Siskiyou National Forest and wild and scenic river planning processes, including the Siskiyou National Forest’s response to 

American Rivers and Oregon Rivers Council’s administrative appeal of the 1989 

Siskiyou National Forest Plan referenced on the final page of Deputy Chief Joel 

Holtrop’s written testimony. The settlement agreement for the appeal was signed 

in 1991. I have it and other documents describing the process still in my files (see 

additional information below). 

I’ve cut and pasted from the National Park Service and National Forest Service’s 

July 30, 2008 written testimonies, as submitted to the Subcommittee on National 

Parks of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and highlighted 

their direct quotes. My response follows. 

1. Big Grayback Grazing Allotment—Compatible Uses and the Siskiyou National 

Forest Plan 

The Forest Service believes that grazing is an environmentally compatible use 

within this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. (National Forest 

Service testimony) 

Siskiyou National Forest Plan direction for Botanical and Research Natural Areas 

contradicts this statement. The area of the Big Grayback grazing allotment, which 

covers both Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest lands, includes several Botanical Areas and a Research Natural Area (RNA). The RNA is known as Craggy Peak 

on the Siskiyou National Forest (SNF) side and Oliver Matthews on the Rogue 

River National Forest side. The Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area is entirely on the 

Siskiyou National Forest and managed under the SNF Plan’s standards and guidelines. It is part of the area proposed expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument. The Botanical Area is in the headwaters of Lake Creek, upstream of the 

Monument’s sole source of potable water, used by both the visiting public and Park 

Service staff.1

CRAGGY PEAK RESEARCH NATURAL AREA

The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan’s (LRMP) 

management goal for Research Natural Areas is the ‘‘[p]reservation of naturally occurring physical and biological units where natural conditions are 

maintained . . . ’’ Page IV-81. Domestic livestock grazing is prohibited in Research 

Natural Areas by the SNF LRMP. Page IV-82. Despite this, 19 years after the SNF 

LRMP was finalized, the Craggy Peak RNA is still grazed by the cattle of the Big 

Grayback allotment. 

ELKHORN PRAIRIE—WHY GRAZING IS NOT A COMPATIBLE USE

The Big Grayback grazing allotment includes Elkhorn Prairie on the border of the 

Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. Elkhorn Prairie was reviewed for Research Natural Area designation during the SNF planning process. It’s part of a 

larger area of high elevation cells around Craggy Peak. Cells are the basic units 

that must be represented in a natural area system. Cells in the Craggy Peak/Elkhorn Prairie area include: herb lands (grass balds), cold springs, green fescue meadows and red fir/white fir interface. Despite the fact that it filled needed cells, Elkhorn Prairie was ‘‘not recommended’’ as an individual RNA or as part of the Craggy 
123 

2The March 8, 2005 comments on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Big Grayback 

Grazing Allotment Update Environmental Assessment, submitted by the Pacific West Region of 

the National Park Service state that: ‘‘Currently, public water supplies for the [Oregon Caves 

National] Monument are obtained from surface water sources. Drinking water for the Monument visitors and staff is supplied by a diversion from Lake Creek approximately one and onehalf miles to the northeast of the Monument boundary. ‘‘The watersheds above these diversions 

are managed by the USFS. Land use includes logging and cattle grazing, which create concern 

for future water quality impact to these water sources . . .’’ (emphasis in the original). 

Peak RNA ‘‘because of the high degree of disturbance and domestic animal use.’’ 

1989 SNF Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), page F-2. 

SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST BOTANICAL AREAS AND BIGELOW LAKES BOTANICAL AREA

The management goal for Siskiyou National Forest Botanical Areas is ‘‘to protect, 

preserve, and enhance the exceptional botanical features of these areas.’’ SNF 

LRMP, page IV-87. The LRMP prohibits ‘‘livestock grazing’’ in Botanical Areas ‘‘except where such use is part of an existing allotment.’’ Id. at page IV-88. The LRMP 

further states that the ‘‘Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area is the only recommended Botanical Area with an existing grazing allotment (Big Grayback Grazing 

Allotment . . .).’’ Id. at page IV-89. 

Specific to the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area, the SNF LRMP requires that cattle 

‘‘shall be prevented from reaching the Lakes area by a drift fence’’ and requires that 

‘‘[t]he effects of grazing shall be monitored and corrective action taken as necessary.’’ Id. at page IV-89. The SNF Plan FEIS further explains the direction to 

monitor the effects of grazing on the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area to specifically 

included the effects of grazing on botanical values: 

[The Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area] is within a grazing allotment (Applegate Ranger District). The impacts of grazing on botanical values needs to 

be assessed. Page F-35. 

While the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest recently began monitoring ‘‘forage’’ levels in the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Areas, the agency has yet to fully monitor or ‘‘assess’’ the impacts of grazing on the ‘‘botanical values’’ of the Bigelow 

Lakes Botanical Area. Additionally, because the agency did not implement the required monitoring, no baseline of the botanical values present when the Bigelow 

Lake Botanical Area was designated have ever been established. 

Therefore, current statements about the effects of grazing on the Botanical Area 

are meaningless. Species may have disappeared unbeknownst to the agency. Additionally, 19 years after the SNF LRMP required that cattle be prevented from 

reaching the Lakes Area by a drift fence, there is no fence and cattle are grazing 

the Lakes Area, the headwaters of the Oregon Caves National Monument’s drink 

water source. 

NATIONAL FORESTS, MULTIPLE USE AND COOPERATION

Consequently, the Forest Service opposes [section 7] ... However, the Forest Service also recognizes the value of working cooperatively and collaboratively with local 

stakeholders to fulfill its multiple use mission on Forest Service lands. (National 

Forest Service testimony) 

The Forest Service’s multiple-use mandate does not require that every acre of the 

forest be managed for every desired product or amenity. 16 U.S.C. § 531(a). The 

SNF LRMP’s prohibition of grazing in Botanical and Research Natural Areas is evidence that the Forest’s Service’s multiple use mandate does not require grazing on 

every acre of the National Forest and in particular this high mountain area. 

Additionally, under the Forest Service’s Organic Act, National Forests were established, in part, to secure favorable conditions of water flows. 16 U.S.C §475. As 

noted above, the Lake Creek Watershed, including its headwaters in the Bigelow 

Lakes area, is the sole source for drinking water for the visiting public and staff 

at the Oregon Caves National Monument. The Forest Service has not worked cooperatively or collaboratively with the National Park Service to address their concerns 

about grazing of cattle in the watershed. This can be seen in the March 8, 2005 comments the National Park Service submitted to the RR-SNF on the 2005 Environmental Assessment for the update of the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment and the 

fact the Park Service was not named as a cooperating agency in either of the two 

recent RR-SNF’s Environmental Assessment’s on the Allotment update, despite the 

National Park Service’s ‘‘special expertise’’ and concerns regarding the safety of the 

Monument’s sole potable water supply.2 40 CFR § 1501.6. See also item #2. 
124 

3The Pacific West Region of the National Park Service’s consolidated comments include those 

of John Leffel, Public Health Consultant for the National Park Service, Pacific West Region— 

Seattle. 

2. Lack of Interagency Coordination to Ensure Protection of the Oregon Caves National Monument’s Public Drinking Water Source 

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not believe that either of the bill’s 

primary purposes, enhanced protection of resources or increased public recreation 

opportunities, would be effectively achieved by its enactment. We believe that interagency coordination is the best and most effective means not only to enhance resource protection and recreational opportunities... (National Forest Service) 

If this statement were accurate, it would not have taken the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 17 years to update the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment (Allotment), prepare an environmental assessment (EAs) and issue a decision notice (DN) 

and finding of no significant impact. Further, the EAs and DNs the RR-SNF did 

issue would have reflected the concerns of the National Park Service about cattle 

grazing in the watershed of the Oregon Caves National Monument’s only viable potable water source—used by both public visitors and staff. Additionally, the Forest 

Service has yet to comply with the requirements of the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Plan with regard to the Allotment in the Bigelow Lakes Botanical Area. The 

long history of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process concerning 

the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, demonstrates a lack of concern for Park Service interests and a failure by the RR-SNF to coordinate with the National Park 

Service to ensure the safety of the Monument’s drinking water supply. 

In 1991 the Rogue River National Forest (RRNF) issued public notice that they 

would prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to update the Big Grayback 

Grazing Allotment (allotment) and began scoping. In 1995 the RRNF finally issued 

an EA for the update but no decision document was ever issued. 

In 1998 the National Park Service finalized the Oregon Caves National Monument’s General Management Plan. The NPS Plan included expansion of the Monument to encompass the Lake Creek Watershed, in part, to protect the Monument’s 

only available domestic water source, which is on RR-SNF land. The allotment includes part of the Monument’s proposed area of expansion, the Monument’s potable 

water source and the watershed of that water source. 

In 2003, the now combined Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RR-SNF), 

began yet another scoping process for the still-not-updated allotment. In February 

of 2005 the Forest Service finally issued a second EA for the allotment update for 

public comment and in September of 2005 they issued a third and revised EA along 

with a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. In other words, it took 

the agency 14 years to issue a decision on the proposal to update the Allotment. 

More importantly, despite the National Park Service’s considerable and well documented interest in its domestic water source and area of proposed expansion, the 

Park Service was not named as a cooperating agency in the EA to update the allotment. Moreover, the Forest Service’s 2005 EA on the update of the Allotment and 

its Decision Notice failed to accurately represent the National Park Service’s concerns about the Allotment and the safety of its public water supply. On March 8, 

2005 the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service submitted consolidated 

comments on the EA for the Allotment update3 to Erin Connelly, Applegate District 

Ranger of the RR-SNF stating that: 

. . . the NPS continues to strongly oppose the practice of allowing cattle 

access to the [Lake Creek] watershed due to the increased risk of introducing pathogenic organisms such as E. coli0157H:7 and Cryptosporidium 

parvum . . .

The presence of grazing cattle within the Lake Creek watershed and NPS 

intake will allow an increased risk of human pathogenic organism to enter 

the Oregon Caves National Monument’s drinking water supply (emphasis 

added) . . .

Therefore it is highly probable that allowing grazing cattle within the watershed will increase the risk of introducing biological and more importantly pathogenic organisms into the Oregon Caves National Monument 

watershed (emphasis in original) . . .

. . . any other alternative that allows cattle to access the Bigelow Lakes 

and Lake Creek area adjacent to the Monument’s domestic water source 

does conflict with the proposed actions in the Oregon Caves National Monument General Management Plan (emphasis in original). 
125 

4The 1991 Settlement Agreement between American Rivers, Oregon Rivers Council and the 

Siskiyou National Forest (signed by John F. Butruille, Regional Forester for Region 6) states 

that ‘‘suitability studies will be target for completion by the end of fiscal year 1996.’’ Copy of 

the settlement agreement is on file with the author of this testimony. 5 Cave Creek is a tributary of Sucker Creek, which in turn is a tributary of the East Fork 

Illinois River. 

Despite the National Park Service’s concerns about cattle grazing in the Lake 

Creek watershed, the RR-SNF selected alternative allowed the grazing of the watershed, with only a drift fence to that will purported prevent cattle from reaching the 

larger of the two Bigelow Lakes. In other words, the headwaters springs, creeks and 

the smaller of Bigelow Lakes are still subject to the cattle grazing. 

3. Siskiyou National Forest’s 1991 Wild & Scenic River Screening Process 

None of the four rivers included partly or entirely in the current Monument expansion proposal were found to meet the criteria for eligibility at that time. The 

Forest Service would suggest that, at minimum, the segments within the proposed 

expansion area be re-evaluated for their eligibility for the NWSRS. (National Forest 

Service testimony) 

The referenced wild and scenic river screening process undertaken by the Siskiyou 

National Forest (SNF) in 1991 was cursory and undertaken by the agency only upon 

an administrative appeal of its 1989 Forest Plan. Decision’s regarding the eligibility 

of streams on the SNF have never subject to public review or challenge under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Moreover to this date, the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest has yet to complete the terms of the 1991 Settlement 

Agreement and prepare suitability studies for the few streams that the SNF Supervisor found eligible to be added to the National Wild and Scenic River System.4

These suitability studies would have triggered a NEPA process on the decisions 

made by the Forest. 

As per the June 1991 settlement agreement between American Rivers, Oregon 

Rivers Council and the Siskiyou National Forest, the Forest Service agreed to 

‘‘evaluate for potential eligibility’’ the tributaries of the Illinois and other rivers on 

the Siskiyou National Forest.5 The final settlement agreement was transmitted to 

Thomas J. Cassidy, Legal Council for American Rivers on or about July 15, 1991. 

The initial screening was scheduled for completion by the end of calendar year 1991. 

Forest Service documents indicate that 425 streams were evaluated. The ‘‘screening process’’ was to be done by three ID teams of no fewer than 5 members each. 

Team members were asked to gather and review existing information prior to the 

first scheduled team meeting when they would discuss eight resource categories for 

each of the streams. Expectations were that teams 1 and 2 would complete the process (which included documentation) in two meeting days and team 3 within a day. 

All process papers and final recommendations were due to the Forest Supervisor 

no later than July 26, 1991. Assuming that the screening process did not begin until 

the final settlement agreement was signed, the SNF allotted approximately eleven 

days for the initial screening of 425 tributary streams on the Siskiyou National Forest, which included evaluation and documentation of eight resources categories on 

each stream. The final decision on potential eligibility of the 425 streams was made 

by the Forest Supervisor. 

Ultimately, the Forest Supervisor selected only twelve of the 425 streams as potentially being eligible for inclusion into the National Wild & Scenic River system. 

Additionally, two streams were to be re-evaluated for their eligibility. In later decisions, made between 1992 and 1994, the Forest Supervisor determined that 6 of the 

12 potentially eligible streams were in fact eligible to become wild and scenic rivers. 

None of these decisions have been subject to review under the NEPA. 

4. Fuels Reduction Projects in Proposed Monument Expansion Area 

We understand that the Forest Service is currently working on a multi-year effort 

to reduce fuels under a comprehensive forest plan, which is intended to help restore 

the appropriate role of fire in the ecosystem, which in turn would benefit monument 

resources that are at risk from fire and fire suppression damage. (National Park 

Service). 

Currently the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is using commercial harvest 

in a coordinated, multi-year effort to reduce fuels, both around the immediate vicinity of the Monument and across the larger watershed and landscape. The Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest plans for approximately 1550 acres of fuels treatment projects within the proposed expansion area. Four hundred and forty acres 

will be treated over the next several years. Of those acres, approximately 100 acres 

will be treated by commercial harvest with volume estimated at 560 thousand board 

feet and an appraised value of approximately $168,000. The remainder will be treat-
126 

ed non-commercially. These treatments are designed and implemented to help restore the historic role of fire in this ecosystem and will help ensure that the forest 

attributes intended for the LSR, including bigger, older, more fire resistant trees, 

remain intact. (National Forest Service testimony) 

On August 17, 2007 a Decision Notice and FONSI were issued for the East Illinois 

Valley Managed Stand Project. The Environmental Assessment and Decision are on 

the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RR-SNF) website—http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/planning/e-illinois-v-mg-stands-prj.shtml. The project proposes to treat approximately 3,000 acres of managed stands on Siskiyou National 

Forest lands. Part of the 3,000 acres is within the proposed Oregon Caves National 

Monument (OCNM) expansion boundaries. The Forest Service testified that: 

It’s likely that the referenced 440 acres in the OCNM expansion boundaries is part of the East IV Project. The rest of the 1,000 plus acres referenced in the National Forest Service’s testimony may be part of a future 

project. 

Rather than deferring the expansion of the OCNM boundaries, a ‘‘cooperative’’ agreement between the Park Service and Forest Service could be 

sought to permit the East IV Project to be implemented, while leaving restoration on the additional acreage for the Park Service to carry out. I don’t 

believe there’s anything that prohibits fuels reduction and forest restoration 

projects on newly acquired National Park Service lands. Indeed, the National Park Service has implemented fuels reduction projects in the forests 

of the OCNM. 

5. Hunting 

If the bill is enacted, we understand from the National Park Service that hunting 

would be prohibited from the 4070 acre proposed expansion area. (National Forest 

Service) 

Almost the entire 1.8 million acre Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest—minus 

the 4070 acres of the Oregon Caves National Monument expansion—will still be 

available for hunting. The only exceptions are areas where the discharging of firearms is prohibited due to safety concerns. These include established campgrounds, 

several high-use areas along several Wild and Scenic Rivers and across rivers and 

roads. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PATTERSON, PRESIDENT/CEO, MONROE COUNTY CONVENTION & 

TOURISM BUREAU, MONROE, MI, ON S. 3247 

I am writing in support of S. 3247, the River Raisin National Battlefield Act, 

which would designate sites related to the Battles of the River Raisin during the 

War of 1812 as a unit of the National Parks System. 

You have heard repeatedly the value of this property and its legacy to the communities of Monroe County, Southeast Michigan and our United States resulting from 

its prominent role in the War of 1812. I would like to offer additional testimony in 

support of this outstanding effort and this exceptional piece of our history. 

Tourism is the #1 industry in Michigan and one of the most significant to our 

businesses, citizens and organizations here in Monroe County. Over 20 million visitors pass through Monroe County each year from throughout the nation and around 

the world, taking with them an impressive perspective of our community and wonderful experiences to share with family, friends and business associates. Nothing is 

more important or makes a greater impact, than the hands on ‘‘experiential’’ time 

they spend here. 

In addition to the wonderful hands on promotional opportunities we have with 

these 20 million visitors and the impact we make on their lives during their time 

here, we enjoy the economic impact of their visits as well. It is estimated that tourism is a half billion dollar industry in Monroe County. With two major interstates 

passing through our County north and south and a major state highway dividing 

it east and west, intra county travel is both easy and desirable. Cabela’s ‘‘The 

World’s Foremost Outfitter’’ in Dundee, for example, on our western border and 

Lake Erie on our eastern border offer attractive destinations for travelers and citizens alike. Events like the Monroe County Fair that attracts over 150,000 during 

its weeklong run and the River Raisin Jazz Festival that attracts over 50,000 during 

its weekend, are examples of tremendous community events that continue to grow 

and add to our quality of life and attractiveness to visitors. 

The magnitude of historic attractions in Michigan like The Henry Ford, Mackinac 

and others, attract millions of visitors as well. Our Monroe County Historical Museum (one of the finest Gen. George A. Custer exhibits in the nation), Navarre An-
127 

derson Trading Post (Michigan’s Oldest Residence) and the River Raisin Battlefield 

and others offer equal historic appeal in Monroe County. All this, makes the significance of the River Raisin National Battlefield a must for continued Economic & Cultural growth and development for the benefit of our Nation, our Great Lakes 

State(s) and our communities here in Monroe County. I urge you to support S.3247 

and look forward to assisting with the promotion of ‘‘The River Raisin National Battlefield’’. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

Cave Junction, OR, November 15, 2007. 

LINDA DUFFY, 

Siskiyou Mountains District Ranger, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 6941 

Upper Applegate Road, Jacksonville, OR. 

DEAR LINDA, Thank you for meeting with me at the Grants Pass Interagency office to discuss the update for the Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan. As discussed. our current position is consistent with written comments submitted by the 

National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Public Health Service for the initial environment assessment (EA). The proposed update change of moving the allotment boundary far enough so as to not cover the public water supply intake is minor and would 

not significantly affect compliance with allotment stipulations. It appears that there 

are no substantive modifications from the previous EA that would appreciably 

change overall potential impacts to the public drinking water supply. Therefore, the 

comments provided by the NPS for the initial environmental assessment are unchanged. 

Although there is no evidence of movement of non-native Phytopthora lateralis 

(PL) via cattle, there is evidence for spread through non-human activity (bear wallow) in the allotment (reference paragraph 1. Page 111-47). This indicates transmission through livestock would be possible. The percentage of infected areas also 

is expected to substantially increase by the end of the century, thus increasing the 

likelihood of spreading PL to the Monument which at present is PL free. 

Recently published studies from Texas A&M University indicate a prevalence of 

Leptospira bacteria occurrence nationwide in cattle herds. According to the study 

the bacteria is spread most frequently and efficiently through urine. There is a potential contamination of the Monument’s public water and nearby surface water by 

the Leptospira species of the bacteria known in Oregon from cattle urine. The disease caused by this genus, leptospirosis, can cause severe intestinal pain and high 

fever in humans. It can be acquired by drinking contaminated water or by transmission through mucous membranes or open cuts. Although filters and chlorine 

treatment may prevent this disease from affecting users of the public water supply, 

the predominance of cattle feces and urine in areas that hikers from the Monument 

use to access upper Bigelow Lakes could pose a risk. Leptospirosis and ways to mitigate this potential impact were not addressed in this EA. 

In the original analysis the presence of cattle on the Monument was not considered an issue as the last evidence of cattle trespass was at least four years prior. 

However, in the last two years cattle defecations have been found in the upper elevations of the Monument. This is of special concern to the NPS due to the presence 

of a plant association (willow/American sawwort) designated in Oregon as rare by 

the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. It is also one of the largest disjunct populations of Saussurea americana that has not been seriously degraded by cattle grazing (Rolle May, Personal communication 1993). Cattle readily use roads and trails 

and could find their way to this meadow via well-used park trails. Sausurea americana was listed in the update as a rare plant in the area covered by the allotment 

but potential effects from cattle on this plant and its association were not addressed 

in the EA. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this action and will continue to 

work closely with you and your staff to identify and mitigate potential impacts to 

the Monument’s visitors and resources. 

Sincerely, 

CRAIG W. ACKERMAN, 

Superintendent. 
128 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

Crater Lake, OR, August 17, 1996. 

MARY L. SMELCER, 

District Ranger, Applegate Ranger District, Rogue River National Forest, 6941 Upper 

Applegate Road, Jacksonville, OR. 

DEAR MS. SMELCER: Thank you for considering our comments on the ‘‘The Big 

Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update—Environmental Assessment.’’ Although the Big Grayback Environmental Assessment (EA)’s public comment period 

ended on October 28, 1995, we feel that new information in regard to 

Cryptosporidium merits additional comments. 

I have enclosed a copy of a memorandum from Phillip Pollard expressing concern 

with potential Cryptosporidium contamination of our public water supply. Mr. Pollard is the U.S. Public Health Service consultant assigned to the Seattle office of 

the National Park Service’s Pacific West Field Area. Mr. Pollard is concerned that 

selection of an alternative that does not exclude cattle from the Lake Creek watershed would represent a significant threat to our public water supply that could not 

be eliminated by our existing water treatment system. 

Only alternatives 2, 4 and 5 address the impact of livestock grazing on Cave 

Creek below Bigelow Lakes, the area where the potential for water quality impacts 

(Cryptosporidium and turbidity) to the Oregon Caves water supply is highest. The 

Monument’s resource management specialist and other staff members have made 

numerous trips along Lake Creek and to the Bigelow Lakes area from 1988 to 1996. 

During these trips it was observed that cattle were just as likely to be grazing 

alongside Lake Creek as to be grazing on the shores of the Bigelow Lakes. If successful, fencing of Bigelow Lakes only (Alternative 2) could increase impacts on 

Lake Creek by diverting cattle to that area. 

Additionally, slope failures, possibly due to roads, occurred above Lake Creek in 

the early 1980s in the form of debris torrents and flows. This led to the temporary 

condemnation and shutdown of the public water supply for the Caves because of turbidity that reached two orders of magnitude above allowable levels for safe drinking 

water. The slope failures have moved a great deal of easily erodible sediment to 

Lake Creek. This material could be remobilized by cattle movement. Some of these 

areas have been reseeded with grasses that attract cattle. We have observed a correlation between periods of high turbidity in the Cave’s water supply and the time 

when cattle have been seen grazing alongside Lake Creek. 

The decision on The Big Grayback Allotment Management Plan Update—Environmental Assessment’’ should further consider potential impacts on public health. The 

presence or absence of Cryptosporidium in Lake Creek should be established. Common to all alternatives should be monitoring of Ctyptosporidium. 

The National Park Service prefers all alternatives that would eliminate or greatly 

reduce the impacts of livestock on Lake Creek, including Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. 

Sincerely, 

CRAIG ACKERMAN, 

Superintendent. 

MEMORANDUM

To: Superintendent, Oregon Caves National Monument 

From: Public Health Consultant, Pacific West and Alaska Field Areas 

Subject: Protection of Watershed 

July 10, 1996. 

I have recently become aware that cattle grazing may be authorized by the Forest 

Service in the watershed from which the domestic water for the Oregon Caves National Monument public water system originates. As you know, the water source for 

this system is Bigelow Lakes which flows into Lake Creek. An intake is installed 

in Lake Creek, and water flows by gravity to the park water treatment plant. At 

the plant, water is filtered through a 50-micron automatic backwashing Filtomat 

prefilter, through a 25-micron automatic backwashing Filtomat intermediate filter, 

through a 5-micron cartridge polishing filter, and finally through a 3M giardia barrier filter bag. The treated water is continuously disinfected with chlorine, ,end then 

flows into storage and distribution. The potential of cattle in the watershed poses 

a significant threat to this public water system from contamination by 

cryptosporidium. 
129 

Cryptosporidium is a protozoan parasite that can live in the intestines of human 

and animals. The infection can be transmitted through person-toperson or animalto-person contact, ingestion of fecally contaminated water or food, or contact with 

fecally contaminated environmental surfaces. In the environment, the organism is 

protected by an outer shell called an oocyst. Once ingested, the organism emerges 

from the shell and infects the lining of the intestine. Ingesting this organism causes 

an illness called cryptosporidiosis that results in symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fever, headache, and loss of appetite. Diarrhea is usually watery and 

accompanied by abdominal cramping. There is no drug or treatment for this disease. 

People with healthy immune systems will recover on their own. People with HIV 

or AIDS, cancer and organ-transplant patients taking immunosuppressive drugs, 

and people with genetically weakened immune system are especially vulnerable. To 

these people, cryptosporidiosis is a life threatening disease. 

An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis occurred in Milwaukee in 1993 causing illness in 

400,000 people and death to approximately 100. This outbreak was traced to water 

from the municipal water plant that comes from Lake Michigan. An outbreak has 

also occurred in Medford that treats surface water from Big Springs. Cattle had 

been allowed in that watershed. Lntbreaks have also occurred in Clark County Nevada, in Georgia, in Washington, and Minnesota. 

The public health community, and drinking water officials including American 

Water Works and state regulators, recommend a multiple barrier approach to keep 

oocysts out of tap water. this includes source water protection in the watershed, optimized treatment, and a sound distribution system. At ORCA we have optimized 

treatment with the 3M filter bag, which has been shown to effectively remove a 

large percentage of oocysts, and the ORCA distribution system has good integrity 

and is not susceptible to contamination. What remains, then, is to protect the entire 

watershed from which the source water flows. 

I recommend you take appropriate measures to assure cattle are not allowed to 

graze in the Bigelow Lakes watershed. 

PHILLIP F. POLLARD. 

STATEMENT OF SEAN SMITH, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION

ASSOCIATION, ON S. 3148 

On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), I write in support of S. 3148—the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act 

of 2008 which was introduced by Senator Wyden. 

In 1998, the National Park Service (NPS) completed a general management plan 

that calls for the expansion of Oregon Caves NM by roughly 3,400 acres. According 

to the Park Service the expansion will better protect the monument’s cave hydrology, surface forest environment, public water supply and park viewsheds. S. 3148 

will make that recommendation a reality. 

The Oregon Caves NM expansion will better protect the monument’s ecology and 

wildlife with little or no cost ro the federal government since no private lands need 

to be acquired. All land proposed for the monument expansion is already owned by 

the federal government within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Transfer 

would merely require Congressional authorization. 

The Oregon Caves expansion should also produce significant economic benefits for 

gateway communities. Research shows that national parks are huge economic engines, generating $4 in value for every one federal dollar invested in them. Park 

gateway communities have higher economic growth rates than non-park communities. The Oregon gateway communities of Cave Junction and Grants Pass will 

clearly benefit from the expanded national monument. 

Oregon Caves National Monument is a northwest gem, and expansion of its 

boundaries as recommended by the Park Service management plan will make it an 

even better place for the public to learn, to enjoy and to be inspired. NPCA urges 

the committee’s support of S. 3148. 

STATEMENT OF SHANE JIMERFIELD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SISKIYOU PROJECT, 

GRANTS PASS, OR, ON S. 3148 

The Siskiyou Project is a 501 (3) (c) public interest organization with 1,500 members that has been seeking protections for the Siskiyou Wild Rivers Area for the 

past 25 years. We have offices near Cave Junction, and in Grants Pass, Oregon. We 

proudly give support for the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2008 (S. 3148). The Act will allow for better management of the area 

immediately surrounding the Oregon Caves National Monument by expanding the 
130 

boundary to encompass lands which provide water and ecological integrity to the 

current Monument. Additionally, it will designate Cave Creek and its tributaries as 

a unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and also provide tremendous 

ecological and economic benefit through the permanent retirement of the Big 

Grayback and Billy Mountain grazing allotments. The expansion is long overdue 

and is a logical way for the federal government to meet the changing needs of the 

American public. 

The Oregon Caves national Monument (OCNM) is a destination for 80,000 visitors 

a year and is a critical source of revenue for local businesses in the Cave Junction 

area. The expansion would provide opportunities to better market the world class 

scenery, geologic wonders, historic buildings, and better manage the unique hydrology and plant diversity. Current ‘‘multiple use’’ management by the Forest Service 

cannot meet the needs of today’s sophisticated tourists that expect ‘‘National Park’’ 

quality experiences when visiting areas managed by the Park Service. 

The OCNM and proposed expansion area includes underground rivers, high elevation meadows and forests of rare flowering plants, sensitive wildlife, unique caveadapted arthropods, and conifer and deciduous tree diversity. From the headwaters 

of Bigelow Lakes below Mt. Elijah to the campground at Cave Creek a true National 

Park quality landscape exists—a landscape worthy of considerable protection to ensure that future generations of Americans continue to enjoy its rare and remarkable 

values. 

BIGELOW LAKES: A BOTANICAL SPECIAL INTEREST AREA

Above the Caves in the high Siskiyou Mountains are the Bigelow Lakes. Formed 

in a glacial cirque the lakes are surrounded by meadows and primeval forests. Ancient species of Brewer’s Spruce and rare flowering plants inhabit the area as relics 

from the ice age. Due to its unique characteristics the area has been given special 

botanical area designation. However, the Forest Service has done little to manage 

for and protect this valuable resource. 

The Park Service has a proven track record for managing natural areas. For example, a rare botanical, the California globe mallow, which grows in the area, requires periodic burning to germinate its seeds. The Park Service would be able to 

meet the plants needs with prescribed burning. Currently, the Forest Service emphasizes cattle grazing which is harmful to the plant and is contributing to the need 

to list the plant under the Endangered Species Act. 

The expansion would open the door for Park Service nature tours in the upper 

Lake Creek watershed and evening presentations at Caves Campground that would 

better inform the American public about the role of fire in western forests, climate 

change, and the need to protect native plant diversity. 

A small change administration authority would yield many benefits far into the 

future. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER BRASH, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS

CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, ON S. 2535 

On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), I write in support of S. 2535—the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site Boundary Revision 

Act which was introduced by Senator Clinton. 

In 2003, the National ParkService (NPS) completed a Boundary Study that calls 

for the expansion of Martin Van Buren National Historic Site by approximately 261 

acres. According to the Park Service, the expansion will allow the NPS to protect 

nationally significant resources and provide visitor access to the original home and 

farm of the eighth President of the United States. The expansion will also provide 

space not in the historic core for long overdue permanent facilities. S. 2535 will 

make the recommendations of the NPS Boundary Study and the wishes of the local 

communities a reality. 

The Martin Van Buren National Historic Site expansion will preserve open space 

in a region where it is quickly disappearing and help tell the rich agrarian stories 

of our national heritage. Visitors will have access to the original Van Buren Farm, 

thus gaining a better understanding of President Van Buren and the significance 

of farming in American history. The land surrounding the Martin Van Buren National Historic site currently remains in its historic agricultural use, but is not yet 

interpreted for the public. The New York State Historic Preservation Office, The 

Open Space Institute, as well as the local community, support the boundary adjustment proposal. 

The expansion of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site demonstrates creative planning and collaboration to preserve a region’s historic character in a way 
131 

that is compatible with modern growth and development. With the proposed expansion, most of the land will remain under private management and not be removed 

from the county tax base. The preservation of these cultural resources as national 

park land will benefit the local Town of Kinderhook, Columbia County, and New 

York State, where the economy, in part, is based on tourism. Research shows that 

national parks are huge economic engines, generating $4 in value for every one federal dollar invested in them. Park gateway communities have higher economic 

growth rates than non-park communities. The New York gateway communities of 

Kinderhook and Columbia County will clearly benefit from this expanded national 

historic site, financially as well as culturally. 

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is a northeastern national historic jewel 

and expansion of its boundaries as recommended by the NPS Boundary Study will 

make it an even better place for the public to learn, to enjoy scenic beauty and historic treasures, and to be inspired. NPCA urges the committee’s support of S. 2535. 

STATEMENT OF BILL MANDULAK, CHAIRMAN, COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

NORTH CAROLINA, RALEIGH, NC 

The Coastal Conservation Association North Carolina wants to correct a mistake 

in the letter we previously sent you. The recreational saltwater license sales drop 

for Dare County was correctly stated as 50% but the statewide drop in sales was 

incorrectly stated as 25%. The correct statewide drop in license sales was 39%. Dare 

County was the largest seller of saltwater licenses in 2007. They are now eighth 

in the state, 

I apologize for the incorrect data. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. MICKA, MONROE, MI, ON S. 3247 

The Subcommittee on National Parks and Parklands has scheduled a hearing on 

Senate Bill S. 3247 this Wednesday (7.30.08). 

As Co-Chair for the Experiential Tourism Task Group, War of 1812 Bicentennial 

Steering Committee, Community Foundation of Monroe County, Michigan, and as 

a member of the Michigan Commission on the Commemoration of the Bicentennial 

of the War of 1812, I offer my support for this legislation. 

As you know, the State of Michigan has been hit hard by the housing crisis and 

loss of manufacturing jobs. Our Governor, Jennifer Granholm, has created a ‘‘Transformation Initiative’’ that will place the State of Michigan on the path to economic 

recovery. 

One of the planks in her platform is cultural economic development (CED). The 

creation of the RIVER RAISIN NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK in Monroe and 

Wayne Counties, Michigan, provides a Community CED Readiness Initiative for 

both counties promising tourism-related jobs. One illustration of this point is the 

$17M investment by the State of Michigan at Sterling Sate Park on Lake Erie adjacent to the River Raisin Battlefield that attracts over one millino visitors a year. 

This is a $28M boost to the local economy on an annual basis for overnight visitation. 

Finally, Senator Carl Levin has championed the NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL 

SCENIC TRAIL. This legislation provides the missing link for that Park Service 

Initative. Monroe County, Michigan, is in a juxtaposition between two of the world’s 

largest metropark systems—the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority (Michigan) 

and the Toledo-Lucas County Metroparks (Ohio). The Park Service can play an important role in connecting these metropark systems through Monroe County which 

is the GATE WAY to Michigan and Michigan’s only County on LAKE ERIE. 

Both Monroe County and Wayne County have heritage resources that would benefit from the Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. The 

Trail from the proposed Battlefield (150 acres) to Sterling State Park (1,200 acres) 

will be universally accessible, thanks to a grant from the Kellogg Foundation. 

We need S. 3247 to sustain the momentum of the Governor’s transformation initiative. 

Æ