604 GAYNOR PLACE, WEST HEMPSTEAD, N.Y., 11552, January 21, 1967. Hon. JOHN DINGELL, Chairman, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: As a resident of Nassau County, New York, and as an avid sport-fisherman of over thirteen years' standing, I thank you and your esteemed colleagues on the Subcommittee for approving the Wetlands bills submitted by you and by Congressman Tenzer. It is clear that American industry and commerce need an external conscience, as it were, which will insure the maintenance of the abundance of our natural resources, and which will counsel them against the sacrifice of irreplaceable assets for the short-lived economic benefit which will accrue to them as a result of this sacrifice. It is also clear that any statute which will enable the Federal government to cooperate with State and Local governments in the preservation of those resources in which we all have a vested interest, and which will not deprive the State and Local governments of their own proprietary or sovereign functions regarding these resources, cannot in all honesty be opposed, and should receive support from all quarters. The record of the Subcommittee, and the testimony therein, make it clear that the Wetlands bills are merely enabling acts, and that their mere promulgation will not result in a deprivation or “taking”, in a Constitutional Due-Process sense. I hope that, when these bills come up before the House for reconsideration, those who at first defeated their enactment will be made to realize that the Nation, the States, and the Local governments have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by the passage of these bills. It is most painful for a young fisherman to listen to older men mourning the departure of weakfish, bluefish, and other highly prized species from our local waters, and to know that, if the status quo continues, he will never know the pleasure of landing these fish in the bays and backwaters of Nassau County. One need only observe the successively poorer catches each season to realize that time is running out for the species which now populate the bays and estuaries of the south shore of Long Island, by reason of the encroachments of real estate developers and the irresponsible dredging operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers, connived at (if not openly encouraged) by private enterprise and local government. Unless affirmative action is taken in our wetlands to eliminate pollution, to encourage the propagation and growth of animal and plant life, and to keep the alterations of existing ecology down to a bare minimum, having due regard for the actual needs of navigation, our wetlands will be laid waste; the offshore fisheries which are biologically dependent on them will become ancient history, and the communities and the thousands of their citizens who rely on fisheries and water recreation as sources of income will be improvished. It is, therefore, with the utmost urgency that I implore our distinguished Representatives in Congress to approve the Wetlands bills sponsored by you and by Congressman Tenzer, with the knowledge that while State and Local governments have only the best intentions and have exercised their obligations as best they could, the basic economics of the problem make it clear that no single state or locality, acting alone, can afford to handle the problem of our diminishing wetlands as it should be handled. Yours most respectfully, MORTON J. SIEGEL, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES, INC.. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is to request that the attached resolution of the Board of Directors of The American Association of Port Authorities be placed upon the record of the hearings on H.R. 25, a bill before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, to vest in the Secretary of the Interior certain powers in relation to estuarine areas. The United States member ports of AAPA represent those boards, bodies, agencies, and commissions responsible for local development of the port facilities under city, state, or special district auspices. That is to say, all are public entities. Represented is a public investment computed at $6 billion in nonFederal funds for providing the nation's seaport facilities. The names and public port affiliations of the Directors of the Association which have taken this action, appear on this letterhead. Briefly, the position of our Board is one of opposition to those sections of H.R. 25 which can in any way be interpreted to alter the functions and responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and thereby adversely affect the provision and maintenance of adequate navigation channels, and related harbor facilities for ocean commerce. The Board of Directors of The American Association of Port Authorities extends through you its sincere thanks to the Committee for this opportunity to be heard. Respectfully submitted. Attachment. PAUL A. AMUNDSEN, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES Resolution of the board of directors in opposition to those portions of H.R. 25 which would vest in the Secretary of Interior certain powers and rights related to the provision and maintenance of Seaport Channel and related harbor facilities Whereas the American Association of Port Authorities includes among its members the principal port agencies, numerous marine terminal operators, civic organizations and others concerned with the operation and administration of seaports along the coasts, bays, rivers and the Great Lakes of the United States and its insular possessions; and Whereas the capacity of such seaports to handle the nation's domestic and oceanborne commerce is directly related to the provision and maintenance of safe, adequate and efficient systems of harbor channels and waterways, a function which has been effectively carried out with expertise by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for nearly a century and a half in the national interest; and Whereas the seaports are vital to the defense preparedness and economy of the nation and serve as an integral part of the nation's worldwide military logistics structure; and Whereas, H.R. 25, the purpose of which is to vest in the Secretary of Interior the authority to designate and control national estuarine areas in the United States so as to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and make them accessible in the interests of sport and commercial fishing, wild life conservation, recreation and scenic beauty, was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the United States House of Representatives on January 10, 1967; and Whereas said H.R. 25 can be construed to pertain to navigational channel improvements and maintenance in seaports, thereby rendering the achievement of these functions and responsibilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and such areas subservient and subject to the primary interests of the Secretary of Interior, such that the provision and maintenance of adequate navigation channels and related harbor facilities used by or in support of ocean commerce may be delayed, prevented or otherwise impeded thereby; and Whereas insofar as the interests of the Secretary of Interior concerning harbor channels and related facilities are provided for by the Fish and Wild Life Coordination Act, by which the Chief of Army Engineers is required to refer to the Secretary of the Interior for review the issuance of construction permits, as well as completed studies prior to their authorization by the Congress: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the President of The American Association of Port Authorities be, and he is hereby, authorized to convey to the appropriate committees of the Congress, its elected members and staffs, and appropriate Federal agencies, the opposition of The American Association of Port Authorities to those sections of H.R. 25 which can, or in any way could be interpreted to alter the functions and responsibilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Enginers and thereby adversely affect the provision and maintenance of adequate navigation channels and related harbor facilities used by or in support of ocean commerce at seaports along the coasts, rivers and bays, the Great Lakes, and the insular possessions of the United States. (Unanimously adopted by U.S. Members of the Board of Directors, AAPA, March 13, 1967.) Congressman JOHN DINGELL, W. K. KELLOGG BIOLOGICAL STATION, OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Hickory Corners, Mich., March 3, 1967. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: I am writing in support of H.R. 25, the Estuarine Bill, and to submit certain information that may be of value in your deliberations. During the period 1960-1964, as Director of the University of Georgia Marine Institute and Research Coordinator for the Sapelo Island Research Foundation, I had the opportunity to live and work in the estuarine area of coastal Georgia. The natural resources and esthetic beauties of the region are obvious, but the environment is particularly striking to a biologist since the significant processes that contribute to the productivity of the estuaries and coastal waters are dynamically represented. Sapelo Island is within one of the few remaining relatively unmolested estuarine areas on the southeastern Atlantic coast and has served for over a decade as a site for basic estuarine research-a reference point, so to speak, that might serve to evaluate changes occurring in more itensively developed estuarine areas. Even in such a relatively remote region as that of Sapelo, encroachment by dredging, filling, and various sources of pollution is becoming increasingly evident. Only a limited acquaintance with the varied activites of man in coastal areas argues strongly that there must be some means of controlling the continuing and rapid destruction of estuarine habitats. There is a requirement for both fundamental knowledge concerning estuaries to assist in wise management of these coastal waters, and legislation to control the activities of private interest groups who would seriously alter a natural resource for use by many to bring profit to a few. I believe that the Estuarine Bill has the potential to provide a legislative mechanism to assist wise management of estuarine environments. Ordinarily, I do not favor strong Federal control, but awareness of abuses and influences that can and do exist at lower levels leaves little hope for a meaningful meeting of interests to preserve estuaries, except under an authority having an overall concern for natural resources at the national level. You may find use for a reference on estuaries that should be available within a matter of weeks. I have enclosed certain materials which present in some detail the rationale for and the program of the Conference on Estuaries held at Jekyll Island, Georgia, nearly three years ago, as well as copies of pertinent galleys of a book about to be published. Estuaries is to be available in late April. Under the circumstances, I'm sure galley copies of pertinent materials could be obtained by contracting Dr. William Kabisch, American Association for the Advancement of Science (387–7171), or the AAAS copy and production editor, Mr. Horace D. Porter, 2940 Garfield Terrace, N.W. (332-3084). I trust that this information may serve some useful purpose at this time and may be helpful in your future discussions. Sincerely, GEORGE H. LAUFF, Director. NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, To Hon. John D. Dingell, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D.C. From R. C. Clement, vice president Re: Testimony on H.R. 25 The enclosures are submitted in compliance with the request of Mr. Charles H. Callison, Exec. Vice President of the National Audubon Society that he be accorded the privilege of submitting additional evidence in support of our testimony on H.R. 25, particularly Sec. 12 of this proposed legislation: 1. A 1964 newspaper map to show the site of the so-called Redwing Fill. 2. Corps of Engineers letter of 5/20/66 to our warden, R. L. Canham, concerning his protest about illegal dredge & fill operations. 3. Our State of Objections to Granting Permit 66–74. 4. Our letter to Lt. Gen. Cassidy of the Corps, inviting his consideration of ecological considerations explained in our Statement of Objections (No. 3). 5. A letter of 5/27/66 from Spec. Asst. A. B. Fitt of the Corps to show that the Washington office had the opportunity of reviewing our objections and concerns. 6. A telegram from Governor Haydon Burns assuring us of his good offices in protecting the Society's important sanctuaries in Hillsborough Bay. 7. A newspaper item of May 20, showing that the Corps had no intention of reviewing policy but had already, apparently, given informal clearance to move ahead. 8. A letter from the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pinpointing the problem of estuarine conservation. 9. A letter from Florida Audubon Society, an independent state society, evincing their involvement and concern. 10. The Corps tired answer to our plea, signed by W. P. Leber, as evidence of their narrow purview and failure to satisfy biological authorities that they had indeed considered our points. 11. Our response to General Leber. 12. Another Corps letter, from Col. Tabb, 9/9/66, apologizing for not being able to help more. 13. Letter of 9/28/66 from our Sanctuary Director John M. Anderson to Conservation Commissioner Hodges of Florida, requesting his aid to stop the abuse of the bay by improper operations under the Corps permit to dredge and fill. Mr. R. L. CANHAM, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Jacksonville, Fla., May 20, 1966. DEAR MR. CANHAM: This is in reply to your letter 13 May 1966 in protest of the application by Mr. Charles E. Mendez for a Department of the Army permit to construct a bulkhead and to dredge and fill in Hillsborough Bay. We had no knowledge that the applicant was proceeding with the work prior to receipt of your letter on 16 May 1966. As you are aware, the navigable waters of the United States within the State of Florida are rather extensive and we have neither the personnel nor the funds to constantly police all the inland waterways, rivers, and creeks in this District for violation of the several Federal laws pertaining to the protection and preservation of navigable waters of the United States. As a result of your complaint an investigation was made and we found that a portion of the work being accomplished by Mr. Mendez was legal in that the work was authorized under a Department of the Army permit issued to the Tampa Electric Company, and a portion of the work, the construction of the dike along the bulkhead line in the vicinity of Whiskey Stump, was illegal. Inclosed is a copy of the permit drawing of Tampa Electric Company and a copy of Mr. Mendez' application drawing on which has been indicated in red the overlapping area. The applicant was informed that if the work in progress is with the knowledge and consent of the Tampa Electric Company the Corps of Engineers can take no exception thereto. As to the construction of the dikes in an easterly direction toward Whiskey Stump, Mr. Mendez was informed that the work is not authorized and that all such work should cease immediately. The applicant has furnished assurance that this illegal work has stopped and that no further such work will be accomplished until he obtains a Department of the Army permit. 1 Placed in the subcommittee files. 77-724-67——— -30 Your interest in this matter is appreciated and you may be assured that your objections to the application will be given careful consideration and it is hoped that the above information clarifies for you the position of the Corps of Engineers in this matter. Sincerely yours, Col. R. P. TABB, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO GRANTING PERMIT 66–74 FOR BULKHEADING, DREDGING AND FILLING IN THE VICINITY OF WHISKEY STUMP KEY AT BIG BEND, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA. The National Audubon Society leases Whiskey Stump Key from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, leases Bird Key (Alafia Bank) from the U.S. Phosphoric Products Company, and owns in fee simple Green Key, three adjacent islands in the eastern portion of Hillsborough Bay near Tampa, Florida. These keys are important wading bird sanctuaries and have been under the protection of the Society since at least 1946. Included are nesting colonies of herons and egrets, brown pelicans, and the largest group of White Ibis in the United States. It is impossible to tell, from the map which is part of the Corps of Engineers' public notice of April 20, 1966, relative to the application of Mr. Charles E. Mendez of the Delta Engineering Company, how close to Whiskey Stump Key the proposed bulkhead line would come, but we call your attention to the fact that our lease includes the water bottoms surrounding and extending for a distance of 300 feet from the shores of this key. We do not contend that an infringement of rights, in the ordinary sense of this word, is imminent. Rather, we fear that the rule of precedent which has guided most prior rulings in such cases will interfere with a broad examination of the important values involved in this case. Because our nation is in such need of imaginative leadership in solving conflicts of interest in the ecological field, we invite the Corps' special participation in providing such leadership, through the challenges presented by this application, and through a thoughtful consideration of the following points. We contend that the physical and biological interactions that make this bay so productive and attractive are of such overriding importance, and so delicately balanced, that they should be given priority over the private property rights and the corporate privileges inherent in our private enterprise system in this case. Just as the engineer has learned that the digging of a pit requires him to take into consideration the angle of repose which the substrate materials will assume after a while, so has the biologist learned that nothing in Nature stands alone: great multitudes of living things coexist in these shallow bays, and are interrelated through "food chains", all of them interwoven in a complex web of life which interacts with, and modifies, the physical factors of the habitat, thus forming what today's scientist calls an ecosystem. This new word was not coined by word-happy specialists; it was necessary to label a new awareness, the scientific discovery of involved natural processes. Truncating an ecosystem diminishes not only its quantity but its quality, and therefore actually creates a new, impoverished ecosystem. The shrimp in the bay depend on photosynthesizing plants, and many birds depend on the shrimp and the fish that feed on shrimp: but the fish and the shrimp and the plants also depend on the birds! It is this feedback principle that ecological science has taught us, and that must be included in all our planning. It is as fundamental, and real, as slumping in mud or sand. A. N. Whitehead once summed up the crux of the ecological point of view more succinctly than any other scientist when he pointed out that "a thing is where it is and where it acts." This simple statement provides an insight into reality— physical and biological-that our American civilization has yet to come to terms with. We of course do not ask the Corps to adjudicate all the implications of these difficult questions-for example, those involved in our concepts of private property and free enterprise-anymore than we take it upon ourselves to do so, but we do ask that this point of view be considered seriously, since it seems to us essential in working out solutions to the land use problems that plague us, particularly in that area of social responsibility called conservation. |