Addi would have the effect of eliminating this industry in these coastal areas. tionally, should this legislation be enacted, water resources development projects which have already been authorized or are in a construction stage by a federal agency other than the Department of Interior could be delayed or prohibited from completion by the action of the Secretary of Interior. It is our considered opinion that H. R. 25 and the related legislation has been suggested prematurely in that it is lacking in definition; refers to areas that are not related (the Great Lakes and their connecting channels cannot be considered estuarine in the strict sense that they are not subject to tidal flow), and the legislation indicates that the Secretary of Interior would have control over federal projects which the Congress has in earlier action placed under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. The objectives of the bills can be obtained by existing legislation which renders unnecessary and undesirable the enactment of any of them. Accordingly, the Mississippi Valley Association respectfully urges that H. R. 25 or any of the related bills not be enacted. Thanking you for the privilege of having our position included in the hearing record, I am, Sincerely yours, ROBERT L. SHORTLE, Vice President. FLORIDA BOARD OF CONSERVATION, Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, Member of Congress, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives, Washignton, D.C. DEAR SIR: I have reviewed carefully H.R. 25, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with the states to preserve, protect, develop, restore and make accessible estuarine areas of the Nation which are valuable for sport and commercial fishing, wildlife conservation, recreation, and scenic beauty, and for other purposes. There certainly is much merit in the purpose of H.R. 25 to preserve and restore estuarine areas. However, there are some changes in the bill that I as Director of the Florida State Board of Conservation believe should be made: 1. The language should be clarified to provide specificaly that any designation of an estuarine area should be made concurrently by the affected state and the Secretary of the Interior. Only those areas selected by a state should be considered by the Secretary for such designation, and the selection by a state should be only after notice to all interested parties and public hearing. 2. The management, administration and control of such designated areas should remain in the most feasible local governmental agency. All jurisdiction should be reserved by the states except that specifically relinquished by the states. I refer particularly to Section 12. I believe that the state through the agency designated by state law should have sole and exclusive jurisdicion over the issuance of permits for any dredging, filling or excavation work within an estuary. With the aforementioned reservations, I approve H.R. 25. RANDOLPH HODGES, Director. NATIONAL RIVERS AND HARBORS CONGRESS, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have the honor to submit for your consideration the following statement, pertaining to H.R. 25 and H.R. 4505, on behalf of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress. This organization, founded in 1901, is dedicated to the full development of the water resources of the Nation for all purposes. Our membership includes State and local governmental agencies, industries, shippers, financial institutions, agricultural groups, merchants, civil groups, and individual citizens in all fifty States. We are in full accord with the stated objectives of these bills-to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and make accessible estuarine areas of the Nation which are valuable for sport and commercial fishing, wildlife conservation, recreation, and scenic beauty. We are concerned, however, about certain provisions of the bills. First, a study of the bills leaves us somewhat uncertain as to the meaning of the terms "National Estuarine Area" and "estuary". It is respectfully suggested that a more specific definition be provided. Second, Section 8 of the bills provides that no shore erosion control, dredging, filling, or beach protection measures on lands or waters within any national estuarine area shall be undertaken unless they are in accordance with a plan that is mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army. We fully recognize the need for full coordination of such plans between the two Departments, indeed we understand that procedures for effecting such coordination are already in existence. As the bill is worded, however, it would seem to deprive the President of his authority to settle differences-if such should occur-between two agencies of the Executive Department. If Section 8 is retained--which does not seem to be necessary or desirable-this point should be clarified. Third, it is believed that Section 12, requiring as it does multiple permits— one from the Secretary of the Army and one from the Secretary of the Interiorcreates an undesirable and apparently unnecessary duplication. It is understood that of several thousand permits issued, only a handful would have met with objection by the Department of the Interior. Further, this section would appear to encroach on the rights of the several States, since it would require a permit for dredging, filling or excavating in or adjacent to any estuarine waters and would thus, in effect, place under Federal control the use of all estuaries and the adjacent lands, as well as the waters of the Great Lakes and their shores. It is therefore respectfully recommended that Section 12 be deleted from the bills. Fourth, it would appear that it would be preferable to attack the problemwhich we fully recognize as a problem-by studies and reports leading to authorization by Congress of specific National Estuarine Areas rather than by the immediate adoption of the rather broad and sweeping authorization contained in these bills. In summary, it is our opinion that although we are in full agreement with the objectives of these bills, those objectives can be attained under existing legislation, and that enactment of the proposed bills is neither necessary nor desirable at this time. If it should be determined, however, that such enactment is desirable we respectfully request that our specific comments and suggestions be given consideration. It is requested that, if possible, this statement be incorporated in the record of the hearings. Sincerely, J. L. PERSON, Brig. Gen. USA, (Ret.), Executive Vice President. PORTLAND SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. DINGELL: I have read with great interest the bill (H.R. 25) which would give the Secretary of the Interior powers, in cooperation with the states, to protect estuarine areas. The need for this bill is very real. The estuarine resource is vital to the health of our commercial fisheries and wildlife. This habitat is a delicate one, all too often misunderstood and all too easily harmed or lost. It is only logical that the Interior Department with its specialized knowledge of the values and ecological intracacies of this habitat should be in a position to help safeguard this resource. Our nation has given attention to the protection of rivers, forests, parks, and other resources, yet we neglected to afford proper protection, and all too seldom shown proper concern, for this narrow estuarine zone, that is perhaps the most productive of all. I consider this bill to be most desirable, and hope that it will receive favorable action by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Respectfully yours, CHRISTOPHER M. PACKARD, Director. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: The Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League wishes to be placed in the Record of hearings in support of HR 25, which we understand is not before the Subcommittee of which you are chairman. Accompanying this letter is a copy of the Resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Directors of our state organization March 12, 1967. We desire that it also be printed in the Record. The Indiana Division of the League, and of course our parent organization, have long been concerned with estuarine problems, and we have been alarmed at the rate of disruptive alteration which these areas have suffered in recent years. We in Indiana are especially sensitive to the problems on our Great Lakes shores, and specifically Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes were specifically referred to by our state directors, and the very strongest position was taken that these shoreline areas be retained within the intent of the proposed law. Our resoluion contains specific language on the Great Lakes. While we realize you are familiar with the Izaak Walton League, it would be useful for the Record to reiterate that our national organization of citizen conservationists reaches from coast to coast. The Indiana Division is the largest of the Great Lakes units in the League with some 5,250 members in 36 chapters from the Ohio River to Lake Michigan. We have about 10 very active chapters in northwestern Indiana in the three counties bordering Lake Michigan; and our state resolution is strongly endorsed by these League chapters, as well as by our entire state organization. Thank you. Sincerely yours, THOMAS E. DUSTIN, President, Indiana Division. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 25 AND S. 695 BY THE INDIANA DIVISION, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., EVANSVILLE, IND. Whereas, legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress for the purpose of initiating a nationwide study of estuarine areas by the Interior Department for the purpose of identifying those which ought to be preserved by federal, state, and/or local action; and controlling modification of estuaries by requiring Interior Department approval of development proposals; and Whereas, the Izaak Walton League of America has long recognized the importance of estuarine areas for conservation purposes including protection of fish and other acquatic life, wetland animals and birds, and coastal area plant life; and Whereas, the Izaak Walton League of America has been in the forefront of the efforts to preserve significant portions of coastal areas in a natural state; and Whereas, coastal marshlands and meadows are important as absorbent areas and flood plains for flood control purposes; and Whereas, natural shorelines, flood plain areas, and estuarine areas are rapidly being altered by bulkheading and filling large ares not intended for, or necessry to, the recognized legitimate use of shorelines for harbors, docks, or navigation purposes; and Whereas, such alteration to the natural shoreline, flood plain, and estuarine areas results in water pollution problems, destroys the aforementioned conservation values, and coastal areas of potential park value, and impairs the natural beauty of the surrounding areas; and Whereas, the coastal areas of the Great Lakes are especially vulnerable to the problems caused by bulkheading and landfills; and Whereas, the Izaak Walton League of America, by National Resolution of 1960, has declared itself to be opposed to bulkheading and filling of shoreline areas except for public purposes; and Whereas, the only existing federal authority exercising control over such coastline alteration is the U.S. Army Corps of Enginers; and Whereas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has ruled on such alterations primarily on the basis of interference to navigation, and has not given sufficient consideration to interference with conservation values: Now therefore be it Resolved by the Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League of America, assembled at Evansville, Indiana, March 12, 1967, That the aims and purposes of H.R. 25 and S. 695 are hereby fully endorsed; and Be it further resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies and officials. SOUTHAMPTON TOWN BAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Re Committee on Merchant Marine Fisheries, H.R. 25. Hon. JOHN DINGELL, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. DINGELL: The South Shore of Long Island in the County of Suffolk, State of New York with its Bays, Rivers, Creeks and Estuaries has one of the greatest potentials in Shellfish and Finfish propagation, culture and development on the Eastern Seaboard. These natural Marine resources will only continue to produce if the Estuaries, Bay waters and Bottoms are protected from pollution and dredging exploitation by huge Real Estate developers. This section of the Country is in the midst of the greatest expansion and real estate development, plus high density population anywhere in the United States. If we are to permit or continue or sanction massive destruction of our natural wetlands and estuaries here as is presently going on and planned by near-sighted politicos and high real estate combines, and waterfront land developers, the fish and shellfish industry will vanish from this section in the shortest time ever imagined. To delay action will be disastrous on Long Island and once destroyed can never be restored. Respectfully yours, EDWIN S. FURMAN, President. SOUTHAMPTON TOWN BAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Re Committee on Merchant Marine Fisheries, H.R. 25. Hon. JOHN DINGELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Be it known that on March 3, 1967 a quorum of the Directors of the Southampton Town Baymen's Assn. Inc. County of Suffolk, Long Island, New York convened to discuss the merits of a pending Bill to Congress identified as follows: [H.R. 25, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with the States to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and make accessible estuarine areas of the Nation which are valuable for sport and commercial fishing, wildlife, conservation, recreation and scenic beauty, and for other purposes. By Mr. Dingell, January 10, 1967. Referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. After due consideration and discussion re the merits of Bill HR-25 it was RESOLVED by unanimous vote of the Directors present to advocate its passage as soon as possible. Respectfully yours, EDWIN S. FURMAN, President. THE LONG BEACH ISLAND CONSERVATION SOCIETY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DINGELL, DEAR SIR: We enclose Statement in approval of your bill which will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to protect estuaries along American Seacoasts. New Jersey has lost tens of thousands of acres of precious wetlands to commercial developers in the last few years, and we, in this area, are now faced with the wholesale development of Barnegat Bay. If our wetlands are not protected this magnificent body of water may soon be polluted and its ecological balance upset. When this happens it can no longer function as a breeding and feeding ground for fish and wildlife, nor will it be of any further use for waterbased recreation. We are confident that your bill will help to save such resources and for this reason we are glad to give it our whole-hearted support. Respectfully, LONG BEACH ISLAND CONSERVATION SOCIETY. ROBERT B. LITCH, Acting Secretary. STATEMENT OF LONG BEACH ISLAND CONSERVATION SOCIETY BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, FAVORING A BILL TO PROTECT ESTUARIES ALONG AMERICAN SEACOASTS Since there are two applications for riparian grants now pending in Barnegat Bay as follows: (1) Riparian grant involving Woods Island neart the Municipality of Harvey Cedars, Ocean County, and (2) Riparian grant around Flat Island in Little Egg Harbor Bay, Long Beach Township, Ocean County, an dsince the developers intend to exploit these Islands for commercial development, we have gone on record as standing in opposition to these projects, and to any other project that may attempt to develop the islands or sand bars along the bay shore of Barnegat Bay for the following reasons: 1. Sewers are not yet available for these developments contaminating matter is bound to accumulate in the lagoons and seriously affect the desirability of the area for bathing and other water-based sports. 2. The New Jersey Department of Health has noted that pollution of this area would destroy a valuable breeding ground for fish and shell fish and would mean that the area would have to be closed for fishing. Disturbing the under-water contours of the bay here would also destroy the plants upon which both fish and fowl now feed. 3. Commercial development of this area will destroy its value as a refuge for wildlife and waterfowl; it will destroy its value as a sheltered area for the youngsters who can now safely go boating, exploring and swimming off this island-and others like it. 4. The precedents which would be set by granting these riparian rights as above would be most unfortunate for the future of Barnegat Bay, and indeed for any bay area along the entire Atlantic Seaboard. It would mean that no future application for development of any island or sand bar could be denied, and it would most probably result in the bay area being built up in colonies of lagoon-front homes and the eradication of all fishing, hunting or water-based sports in Barnegat Bay. It would destroy the beauty of the Bay and all of its value as a wildlife preserve. 5. The most important asset which Long Beach Island and the Barnegat Bay area possess is a clean, unspoiled natural environment. This has been heavily encroached upon in recent years so its preservation is of paramount importance not only to keep this region as an attractive place to live but as a vital sector of the resort industry of Ocean County. For these reasons the Long Beach Island Conservation Society approves of the bill sponsored by U.S. Representative Dingell, D. Mich. which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to approve or REJECT projects which might bring additional pollution to tidal estuaries and wetlands. |