[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 896 and H.R. 1989
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 7, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-930 WASHINGTON : 2002
________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 7, 2001..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 896 and H.R. 1989............. 2
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 37
Prepared statement on H.R. 896........................... 43
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam.. 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 896 and H.R. 1989............. 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Ashe, Daniel M., Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior...... 58
Prepared statement on H.R. 896........................... 59
Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council.................................................... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 1989.......................... 25
DeLeonard, Robert, President, New Jersey Beach Buggy
Association................................................ 74
Prepared statement on H.R. 896........................... 76
Dunnigan, John H., Executive Director, Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission....................................... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 1989.......................... 19
Hogarth, Dr. William T., Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 1989.......................... 9
Kelly, Hon. John P., Director, Ocean County Board of
Freeholders, and Mayor of Eagleswood Township, New Jersey.. 64
Prepared statement on H.R. 896........................... 65
Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 896.............. 67
Letter submitted for the record on the Holgate Unit of
Long Beach Island...................................... 54
McDowell, Robert, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.......... 61
Prepared statement on H.R. 896........................... 62
Savadove, Laurence, Beach Haven, New Jersey.................. 70
Prepared statement on H.R. 896........................... 72
Short, Cathleen, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat
Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior............................................... 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 1989.......................... 15
West, Ambassador Mary Beth, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans and Fisheries, Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of
State...................................................... 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 1989.......................... 5
Additional materials supplied:
Koons, Joan, President, Board of Trustees, Alliance for a
Living Ocean, Letter submitted for the record.............. 56
Leatherman, Stephen P., Ph.D., Professor and Director,
Laboratory for Coastal Research, Florida International
University, statement on H.R. 896 submitted for the record
by Hon. Robert Underwood................................... 93
Lick, Robert E., Cheyenne, Wyoming, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 85
Mancini, James J., Ocean County Freeholder and Mayor, Long
Beach Township, Statement on H.R. 896 submitted for the
record by Hon. Jim Saxton.................................. 51
Semcer, Bart, Associate Washington Representative, The Sierra
Club, Statement on H.R. 896 submitted for the record by
Hon. Robert Underwood...................................... 46
Waltman, James R., Director, Refuges and Wildlife Program,
The Wilderness Society, Statement on H.R. 896 submitted for
the record by Hon. Robert Underwood........................ 44
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1989, THE FISHERIES CONSERVATION ACT OF
2001, AND H.R. 896, A BILL TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF RECREATIONAL
FISHERMEN AND OTHER PERSONS WHO USE MOTOR VEHICLES TO ACCESS BEACHES
ADJACENT TO THE BRIGANTINE WILDERNESS AREA IN THE EDWIN B. FORSYTHE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, NEW JERSEY, BY PROVIDING A NARROW TRANSITION
ZONE ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH TIDE WHERE MOTOR VEHICLES CAN BE SAFELY DRIVEN
AND PARKED
----------
Thursday, June 7, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning, everybody. The Subcommittee
will come to order.
We will first discuss H.R. 1989.
It was a good year because I was not in Congress in that
year.
[Laughter.]
I don't think Robert was here either. Jim was here though.
Mr. Saxton. What was that?
Mr. Gilchrest. Jim was in Congress in 1989.
We will first discuss H.R. 1989, the Fisheries Conservation
Act of 2001.
This bill, which we introduced, reauthorizes the following
statutes: the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, the
Anadromous Fisheries Conservation Act of 1965, the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984, the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Marine Fisheries Program
Authorization Act of 1983, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of
1975, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995,
until September 30, 2006.
These are important fisheries laws, and I am interested in
hearing whether the provisions of these statutes improved for
the future.
The second part of today's hearing is on H.R. 896, a bill
introduced by the former, distinguished Chairman of this
Subcommittee, Congressman Jim Saxton.
It is my understanding that the goal of this legislation is
to solve a local problem that involves the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and certain New Jersey residents, who have
recreationally fished at the Holgate Peninsula for many years.
While I am not familiar with all the details of this
situation, I am interested in learning what has been the impact
of off-road vehicles on the Brigantine wilderness, what was the
rationale of the 1990 Public Use Management Plan for the
Holgate Unit, and what conditions have changed that have led
the Service to conclude that Holgate should be closed to all
motor vehicles on a year-round basis.
It is my hope that our invited witnesses will specifically
address these key issues.
And I look forward to the testimony this morning for both
parts of this hearing, how we can collaborate with the various
agencies and departments on the Federal and state level to
bring together sometimes diverse views together so that the
nation's fisheries can be sustained and continue or be made to
be in a much more healthful state.
And my good friend, Mr. Saxton, I think has agreed to take
the second part of the hearing. And we look forward to those
witnesses so that we resolve an issue in Mr. Saxton's district.
At this point, I would like to yield to the distinguished
gentleman from Guam.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning, today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on two
bills, H.R. 1989 and H.R. 896.
We will first discuss H.R. 1989, the Fisheries Conservation Act of
2001. This bill, which I introduced, reauthorizes the following
statutes: the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986; the Anadromous
Fisheries Conservation Act of 1965; the Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act of 1984; the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration
Marine Fisheries Program Authorization Act of 1983; the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act of 1975; and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention
Act of 1995 until September 30, 2006. These are important fishery laws
and I am interested in hearing whether the provisions of these statutes
can be improved for the future.
The second part of today's hearing is on H.R. 896, a bill
introduced by the former distinguished Chairman of this Subcommittee,
Congressman Jim Saxton. It is my understanding that the goal of this
legislation is to solve a local problem that involves the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and certain New Jersey residents who have
recreationally fished at the Holgate Peninsula for many years.
While I am not familiar with all of the details of this situation,
I am interested in learning what has been the impact of off-road
vehicles on the Brigantine Wilderness, what was the rationale of the
1990 Public Use Management Plan for the Holgate Unit and what
conditions have changed that have led the Service to conclude that
Holgate should be closed to all motor vehicles on a year-round basis.
It is my hope that our invited witnesses will specifically address
these key issues.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing today on a broad range of legislative
issues.
Our first panel, as you have indicated, will discuss the
reauthorization of a number of fisheries laws that govern both
domestic and international fisheries activities. While these
laws are generally without controversy, recent management
debates related to some East Coast fisheries have led at least
one of our witnesses to question whether the current
cooperative management efforts between the states and the
National Marine Fisheries Service are adequate and to suggest
that changes are needed to improve this management structure.
I will be interested to learn whether other witnesses on
the panel agree with these proposals and welcome what I believe
is a necessary and healthy discussion that I hope will improve
the overall management of our fisheries.
I will also be interested to hear from this morning's
second panel regarding their views about H.R. 896, legislation
which would provide motorized access across a designated
coastal wilderness area in the Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey.
Certainly, I can appreciate the circumstances behind this
bill and the good intentions of its sponsor, our colleague,
Congressman Saxton.
However, its very nature--providing motorized access in a
designated wilderness area--contradicts the Wilderness Act and
the law established the Brigantine Wilderness area and sets a
precedent for the entire national wilderness preservation
system.
Such are the stakes. And indeed, they represent a very high
hurdle. In this respect, I urge that the Committee proceed in a
necessarily cautious and deliberate manner while considering
this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert Underwood, a Delegate in Congress
from Guam
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on a broad
range of legislative issues. Our first panel, as you mentioned, will
discuss the reauthorization of a number of fisheries laws that govern
both domestic and international fisheries activities.
While these laws are generally without controversy, recent
management debates related to some East Coast fisheries have led at
least one of our witnesses to question whether the current cooperative
management efforts between the states and the National Marine Fisheries
Service are adequate, and to suggest that changes are needed to improve
this management structure. I will be interested to learn whether other
witnesses on the panel agree with these proposals and welcome what I
believe is a necessary and healthy discussion that I hope will improve
the overall management of our fisheries.
I also will be interested to hear from this morning's second panel
regarding their views about H.R. 896, legislation which would provide
motorized access across a designated coastal wilderness area in the
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. Certainly, I
can appreciate the circumstances behind this bill and the good
intentions of its sponsor, Congressman Saxton.
However, its very nature--providing motorized access in a
designated wilderness area--directly contradicts the Wilderness Act and
the law that established the Brigantine Wilderness Area and sets a
dangerous precedent for the entire National Wilderness Preservation
System. Such are the stakes, and indeed, they represent a very high
hurdle. In this respect, I urge that the committee proceed in a
necessarily cautious and deliberate manner while considering this bill.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement, but
it pertains to the second bill, and I think I will wait until
that time to give my opening statement, if it is all right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Welcome to our hearing this morning. We look forward to an
interesting exchange of ideas and ideals that we can all shoot
for.
Ambassador Mary Beth West, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MARY BETH WEST, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND SPACE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee.
We appreciate the opportunity to share the Department of
State's views on the international aspects of the legislation
being considered today.
Two of the statutes that would be amended by the Act under
discussion implement key international fisheries conservation
and management agreements:
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, which implements
the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of
1995, which implements the Convention on Future Multilateral
Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.
Almost 10 years ago in Rio, the international community
agreed on the need to address the increasingly dire condition
of the world's fishery resources. From that impetus came
several new global instruments, including the U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization's Compliance Agreement and Code of
Conduct, the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as a
recognition that existing regional fisheries organizations had
to strengthen their mandates to conserve and rebuild dwindling
resources.
Several organizations took inspiration from those
instruments to adopt creative and effective tools to address
the problems of overfishing and illegal fishing.
In particular, ICCAT, the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and NAFO, the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization, have each set precedents among
other organizations by incorporating the principles of the
compliance agreement and the fish stocks agreement into rules
governing member compliance and nonmember fishing.
The U.S. has been a member of ICCAT since 1967 and has
worked actively within the organization to protect U.S. access
to the high-value stocks the commission manages and to
encourage long-term sustainable management of those stocks.
Under U.S. leadership, ICCAT has adopted groundbreaking
rebuilding plans for two of the most overfished and valuable
stocks in the Atlantic. And the commission is in the middle of
an exercise to establish comprehensive criteria to allow access
to allocations for all members in a transparent and fair way.
One of the major problems faced by ICCAT is illegal
fishing. As a result, in recent years, ICCAT adopted rules
providing for multilateral trade measures against those, both
member and nonmembers alike, who overfish ICCAT species.
Continued U.S. involvement in the organization will be
critical to ensuring its future success. And we, therefore,
recommend the reauthorization of the Atlantic Tunas Convention
Act to allow this.
By contrast, the U.S. has participated in NAFO for only the
past 5 years. However, we have also taken an active role in
guiding this organization to adopt rules and management
measures consistent with international law.
Most of the stocks managed by NAFO have been under fishing
moratoria for the past several years. And we have, therefore,
received only limited allocations of NAFO stocks. The absence
of extensive high seas fisheries has instead allowed NAFO to
focus on adopting comprehensive measures to address illegal
fishing in the convention area and to implement provisions to
allow for greater transparency in the organization.
These measures have set important precedents for other
organizations and have helped to build credibility for
conservation-based fisheries management.
We are pleased, too, that in recent years the U.S. has
received new allocations of NAFO-managed stocks. And we hope to
work within the organization to build sufficient quota rights
so that fishing these stocks will become economically feasible.
Much remains to be done to restore the fish stocks in the
Northwest Atlantic. In the meantime, the U.S. has an important
role to play. Therefore, we also support reauthorization of the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995.
Mr. Chairman, reauthorization of both of these acts will
enhance the role of the United States as an important voice for
conservation and cooperative management of key Atlantic fish
stocks.
Thank you very much. And I would be happy to take questions
that the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. West follows:]
Statement of Ambassador Mary Beth West, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans and Fisheries, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Department of State's
views on the international aspects of the legislation being considered
today. Two of the statutes that would be amended by the Act under
discussion implement key international fisheries conservation and
management agreements: the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, which
implements the International Convention for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of
1995, which implements the Convention on Future Multilateral
Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.
Almost ten years ago in Rio, the international community agreed on
the need to address the increasingly dire condition of the world's
fishery resources. From that impetus came several new global
instruments, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's
Compliance Agreement and Code of Conduct, and the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement, as well as a recognition that existing regional fisheries
organizations had to strengthen their mandates to conserve and rebuild
dwindling resources. Several organizations took inspiration from those
instruments to adopt creative and effective tools to address the
problems of overfishing and illegal fishing. In particular, ICCAT (the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) and
NAFO (the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization) have each set
precedents among other organizations by incorporating the principles of
the Compliance Agreement and Fish Stocks Agreement into rules governing
member compliance and non-member fishing.
The United States has been a member of ICCAT since 1967, and has
worked actively within the organization to protect U.S. access to the
high-value stocks the commission manages, and to encourage long-term
sustainable management of the stocks managed by ICCAT. Under U.S.
leadership, ICCAT has adopted ground-breaking rebuilding plans for two
of the most overfished (and valuable) stocks in the Atlantic. And the
Commission is in the middle of an exercise to establish comprehensive
criteria to allow access to allocations for all members in a
transparent and fair way. One of the major problems being faced by
ICCAT is illegal fishing. As a result, in recent years ICCAT adopted
measures providing for multilateral trade measures against those--both
member and non-member alike--who overfish ICCAT species. Continued U.S.
involvement in the organization will be critical to ensuring its future
success, and we therefore recommend the reauthorization of the Atlantic
Tunas Convention Act to allow this.
By contrast, the United States has participated in NAFO for only
the past five years. However, we have also taken an active role in
guiding this organization to adopt rules and management measures
consistent with international law. Most of the stocks managed by NAFO
have been under fishing moratoria for the past several years, and we
have therefore received only limited allocations of NAFO stocks. The
absence of extensive high-seas fisheries has instead allowed NAFO to
focus on adopting comprehensive measures to address illegal fishing in
the Convention Area, and to implement provisions to allow for greater
transparency in the organization. These measures have set important
precedents for other organizations and have helped to build credibility
for conservation-based fisheries management. We are pleased, too, that
in recent years the United States has received new allocations of NAFO-
managed stocks and hope to work within the organization to build
sufficient quota rights so that fishing these stocks will become
economically feasible. Much remains to be done to restore the fish
stocks in the Northwest Atlantic; in the meantime, we have an important
role to play. Therefore, we also support reauthorization of the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995.
Mr. Chairman, reauthorization of both of these Acts will enhance
the role of the United States as an important voice for conservation
and cooperative management of key Atlantic fish stocks.
Thank you very much. I would be happy to take any questions that
you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ambassador West.
Dr. Hogarth?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HOGARTH, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Hogarth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
talk about the reauthorization of several statutes important to
the work of NOAA Fisheries.
The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 authorizes
Commerce and Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with
states and other nonFederal interests for the conservation,
development, and enhancement of anadromous fishery resources of
the nation, including those in the Great Lakes.
The amount of funds that may be used to finance projects
varies. For most projects, Federal funds account for 50 percent
of the costs. But in some cases, a higher percentage of Federal
funding is allowed.
State fishery agencies, colleges, universities, private
entities, and other nonFederal interests in 31 states bordering
the oceans or the Great Lakes may participate in this Act.
Funding made available to the recipients in recent years has
been about $2 million a year, with the most recent
authorization being $4.25 million for the fiscal years 1998,
1999, and 2000.
We see numerous benefits resulting from the reauthorization
of this Act. Since the mid-1960's, the Act has served as a
traditional base source of funding, providing the necessary
resources for the states to conserve and manage anadromous
fishery resources such as sturgeons, river herring, and striped
bass.
Information collected on anadromous fish under this program
is used to support management decisions at the state and
interstate levels and those required under Federal statutes.
The Interjurisdictional Fishery Act of 1986 is a formula-
based financial assistance program with two overall purposes.
The first purpose is to promote and encourage state activities
in support of the management of interjurisdictional fishery
resources, and, two, to promote the management of
interjurisdictional fishery resources throughout their range.
Any state, either directly or through and interstate marine
fisheries commission, can submit a research proposal that
supports management of fishery resources that, one, occur in
waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states and the
EEZ, the Exclusive Economic Zone; two, are managed under
interstate fishery management plans; or, three, migrate between
the waters under the jurisdiction of two or more states
bordering on the Great Lakes.
The Federal share of the projects is usually 75 percent.
Section 308(a) makes funds available to states to support
interjurisdictional fishery management, and the most recent
authorization has been about $4.4 million per year.
Section 308(c) provides support for the development of
fishery management plans by interstate marine fishery
commissions, and has been funded at its full authorization of
$750,000 in recent years.
Section 308(b) and 308(d) support disaster provisions and,
since 1986, have provided over $100 million in response to
disasters, such as the New England groundfish collapse, the
Gulf of Mexico commercial gear loss, and Pacific salmon
decline.
Since 1986, the Act has served as a base source of funding
for many marine fishery data collection programs. The
information collected under this Act provides for state and
Federal agency cooperative efforts to manage and protect many
important species, such as American lobsters, sea herring,
Alaska sablefish, and southern shrimp.
We recommend reauthorization and continued congressional
support for this Act. The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation
Act, I think it goes without saying this, has been probably one
of the greatest successes we have had. I think when other
people look at fishery management and recovery, they look at
striped bass.
This Act is highly effective in addressing Atlantic coast
striped bass management. It provides a mechanism that encourage
state compliance with interstate fishery management plans for
striped bass and allows for implementation of complementary
Federal regulations for striped bass in the Exclusive Economic
Zone.
Congress has recently reauthorized the Striped Bass Act
through Fiscal Year 2003 for $1 million each year to the
Secretary of Commerce and $250,000 each year to the Secretary
of the Interior. However, no funds have been appropriated under
the Act.
Activities carried out to implement the striped bass
mandate have been funded through other Federal and state
programs. We recommend maintaining the authorization.
The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act,
like the Striped Bass Conservation Act, has proven to be highly
effective. It provides the mechanism that encourages
implementation, again, of interstate fishery management plans;
allows implementation of complementary Federal regulation in
EEZ; and, unlike the Striped Bass Act, it is an important
funding source that supports state and Federal activities to
develop and implement the interstate fishery management plan.
Joint commission-council FMPs have been implemented for a
number of species. While we support these commission-council
FMPs, there has been a difficulty in some cases to implement
joint fishery management plan activities with the commission's
requirements while the commission requirements are less
stringent than those required by the Federal plans.
The council is required to abide by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act in the national standards and other provisions. The
Atlantic Coastal Act does not require the same type of
standards.
The most recent difficulty highlighted has been the 2001
summer flounder quota. However, we are working now through a
joint effort with all parties to see if we can work out our
difficulties by sitting around the table. And, hopefully, we
can work out these problems.
Congress has recently authorized the Act, in December 2000
through Fiscal Year 2005, for $10 million each year to the
Secretary of Commerce. Congress appropriated $7 million for the
Fiscal Year 2001.
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995
implements the convention for the future multilateral
cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, which
established the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization,
NAFO.
And I think Ambassador West covered this very clearly and
concisely, and I will not spend any more time on this issue.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine
Fishery Program Authorization Act of 1983: This is an Act that
authorizes a number of NOAA's marine fishery programs
established under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and laws
implementing international fishery agreements.
The appropriation authorized by this Act are in addition to
those in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Endangered Species Act,
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Interjurisdictional
Fishery Act, and the National Fishery Conservation Act.
Specifically, this Act authorized appropriations for
specific subactivities within the current NMFS appropriations
budget structure. These activities are for fishery information
collection and analysis, fishery conservation and management,
and state and industry cooperative programs.
For example, the fisheries information collection and
analysis of activity includes funding for the collection,
analysis and dissemination of scientific information necessary
for the management of living resources and associated marine
habitat.
This Act also includes the appropriations for the NOAA
Chesapeake Bay office.
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 again is an Act
that I think Ambassador West covered very concisely. And the
funds appropriated under this Act are used to support the
advisory Committee, the regulatory activities of NMFS's highly
migratory species management division, permitting and reporting
activities of the Northeast and Southeast regional office, and
research activities conducted by the science centers.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you for this opportunity to review
the reauthorization of several statutes that are important both
to the states and NOAA Fisheries. We are committed to working
with our state and Federal partners for effective management of
nation's fishery resources.
This concludes my testimony, and I am prepared to respond
to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hogarth follows:]
Statement of William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to this hearing on the reauthorization of the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, the Anadromous Fisheries
Conservation Act of 1965, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of
1984, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine
Fisheries Program Authorization Act of 1983, the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act of 1975, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention
Act of 1995, all addressed in the Fisheries Conservation Act of 2001. I
am William T. Hogarth, the Acting Administrator for Fisheries in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of Commerce.
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965
The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
cooperative agreements with states and other non-Federal interests for
the conservation, development, and enhancement of the anadromous
fisheries resources of the nation, including those in the Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain. Since the mid- 1960s, the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act (AFCA) has served as the traditional base source of
funding for the states, providing the necessary resources to conserve
and manage anadromous fisheries resources like salmon, striped bass,
and river herring. These fisheries resources, with their complicated
life histories, require special attention because of the many ocean and
inland challenges to their survival. Full recovery of these resources
will provide enormous economic and social benefits to the American
public. Also, the AFCA provides funding for collecting information on
several Great Lakes fish species and for other important species such
as sturgeons and shads. Information collected by these anadromous fish
programs is used to support management decisions at the state,
interstate, and Federal levels required under the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The data
collected provide vital links among state and Federal agency
cooperative efforts to manage and protect important anadromous fishes.
Without the AFCA, many of these economically and ecologically valuable
resources (e.g., paddlefish, sturgeons, salmonids) are likely to become
or remain endangered, threatened, or depleted, further depriving
Americans of food and recreational fishing opportunities, and causing a
multitude of economic and social impacts associated with mandated
recovery programs.
Historically, the program was administered at the Federal level by
both the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. However, for the past 8 years, Congress has provided
funding only to NMFS. The amount of funds that may be used to finance
projects varies. For most projects, Federal funds account for 50
percent of the cost, but Federal funds can support up to 66.66 percent
of the cost when two or more states cooperate. Up to 90 percent Federal
funding can be made available only if a state has implemented an
interstate fisheries management plan for an anadromous species to which
the project applies. State fisheries agencies, colleges, universities,
private companies, and other non-Federal interests in 31 states
bordering the oceans or the Great Lakes may participate under this Act.
All projects must be coordinated with, and cleared through, the state
fisheries management agency of the state in which the project takes
place. The total amount of funds obligated in any fiscal year to any
one State may not exceed $650,000. Funding made available to recipients
in recent years has been about $2.0 million a year. The most recent
reauthorization for this Act was in October, 1996, through Public Law
104-297, which reauthorized the program at an annual level of $4
million for Fiscal Year 1997, and $4.25 million for each of the fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000. We find the current funding level
appropriate.
We recommend reauthorization and continued Congressional support
for the AFCA. We see the anadromous fisheries projects, funded under
the AFCA, as valuable assets that help the Federal Government and state
fisheries agencies work closely together to protect and restore our
nation's anadromous fisheries resources.
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986
The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 (IFA) is a formula-
based financial assistance program with two overall purposes: (1) to
promote and encourage state activities in support of the management of
interjurisdictional fisheries resources and (2) to promote the
management of interjurisdictional fisheries resources throughout their
range. Any state may, either directly or through an interstate marine
fisheries commission, submit a research proposal that supports
management of fishery resources that: (1) occur in waters under the
jurisdiction of one or more states and in the Exclusive Economic Zone;
(2) are managed under an interstate fishery management plan; or (3)
migrate between the waters under the jurisdiction of two or more states
bordering on the Great Lakes.
Since 1986, the IFA has been the traditional base source of funding
for many marine fisheries data collection programs. Funds provided
under the IFA are spent to obtain catch and effort statistics and other
fisheries information important for managing marine interjurisdictional
species. This information is used to support management decisions both
at the state level and those required under the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Like the Anadromous Fish Conservation
Act, the information collected under the IFA provides vital links among
state and Federal agency cooperative efforts to manage and protect many
important marine migratory species. IFA helps states provide the
research, data collection, and fisheries management infrastructure to
properly manage interjurisdictional marine resources. Without the IFA,
the information necessary for the proper management of many of these
economically and ecologically valuable resources (e.g., American
lobsters, sea herring, Alaska sablefish)would be lacking.
Pursuant to the law, funds that support interstate fishery
management programs are made available to the states under section
308(a) based on a complex apportionment formula that utilizes the
volume and value of fish landed in each state by domestic commercial
fishermen. Federal share of project costs may amount to as much as 75
percent, or 90 percent when states have adopted fishing regulations
that are consistent with an interstate or Federal fishery management
plan for the species to which the study applies. Enforcement projects
funded through this section must pertain to the protection of fishery
resources that are managed under an interstate fishery management plan
and may be 100% financed by Federal funds up to $25,000. Funds made
available to states under section 308(a) have been about $3.2 million
in recent years. The most recent reauthorization for section 308(a)
authorized $3.4 million for Fiscal Year 1996, $3.9 million for Fiscal
Year 1997, and $4.4 million for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
Sections 308(b) and 308(d) provide for assistance to address
fishery resource disasters. Section 308(b) authorizes the Secretary to
provide grants or cooperative agreements to states determined to have
been affected by a commercial fishery failure or serious disruption
affecting future production due to a fishery resource disaster from
natural or undetermined causes. The Federal share of the cost of
assistance is limited to 75 percent.
Pursuant to section 308(b), the Secretary declared a failure of the
Northeast multispecies groundfish fishery in Fiscal Year 1994. In
Fiscal Year 2000, a disaster determination was made for Alaskan salmon
fisheries under both IFA section 308(b) and section 312(a) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The
declaration under IFA section 308(b) was needed to make Small Business
Administration loans available to eligible businesses in the area.
Section 308(d) allows the Secretary to provide assistance to
commercial fishermen, either directly or indirectly through state or
local government agencies and nonprofit organizations, to alleviate
harm caused by a fishery resource disaster from hurricanes or any other
natural disasters. Cost sharing is not required, but assistance
programs require notice in the Federal Register and the opportunity for
public comment.
In 1994 a fisheries disaster was declared under section 308(d) for
the Pacific salmon decline in the Pacific Northwest. Declarations in
1995 included the Northeast multispecies groundfish collapse, the Gulf
of Mexico commercial gear loss, and continuation of the Pacific salmon
disaster. An appropriation of $65 million was made available to these
three regions. In Fiscal Year 1999, an additional $1 million was
appropriated under section 308(d) to continue support for the
fishermen's health care program that was part of the original
assistance package for the Northeast multispecies groundfish collapse.
Section 308(c), which provides support for the development of
fishery management plans by interstate marine fisheries commissions,
has been funded at $750,000 in recent years. The most recent
reauthorization of section 308(c) authorized funding of $700,000 for
Fiscal Year 1997, and $750,000 annually for fiscal years 1998 through
2000. We find the current funding levels appropriate.
We recommend reauthorization and continued congressional support
for the IFA. We see the projects funded under the IFA as valuable
assets that help the Federal Government and state fisheries agencies
work closely together to protect and restore our nation's marine
interjurisdictional fisheries resources.
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984
The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (Striped Bass Act) has
proven to be a highly effective statute addressing Atlantic coast
striped bass management problems. It provides a forcing mechanism that
encourages compliance with the successful Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Striped
Bass and allows implementation of complementary Federal regulations for
striped bass in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Congress recently
reauthorized the Striped Bass Act, (in December 2000) through Fiscal
Year 2003 for $1,000,000 for each year to the Secretary of Commerce,
and $250,000 for each year to the Secretary of the Interior. No funds
have ever been appropriated under the Act. Activities carried out to
implement the Striped Bass Act's mandates have been funded through
other Federal and state programs. No further authorization of funding
is needed at this time.
The Striped Bass Act also requires the Secretaries of Commerce
(DOC) and the Interior to work in consultation with the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) to conduct a study on the
Atlantic striped bass population (population study). The results of
this study are to be reported to Congress within 180 days of enactment
of the last reauthorization. While the DOC fully supports continuation
of striped bass stock assessments, it notes that the new study required
is a subset of ongoing research conducted by DOC researchers in
cooperation with the Department of the Interior and the Commission, and
that the information required in the population study is already
reported to Congress, on a biennial basis, as required by the 1996
reauthorization of this Act. Results of other peer-reviewed research
funded under this Act are also reported in the biennial reports. DOC
has already provided informal draft findings of the population study to
Congressional staff, and believes that the requirement of the
additional report is redundant.
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
Like the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, (Striped Bass Act)
the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic
Coastal Act) has proven to be a highly effective statute in addressing
Atlantic coast fisheries management problems. It provides a forcing
mechanism that encourages implementation of Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission) interstate fisheries management plans
(ISFMPs), allows implementation of complementary Federal regulations to
ISFMPs in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and is an important
funding source that supports state and Federal activities required for
the development and implementation of the ISFMPs. Currently, 19 ISFMPs
covering 24 Atlantic coastal species have been implemented. For those
species that are found primarily in state waters, regulations in
Federal waters may be implemented by a regional fishery management
council, or by Federal regulation. Joint Commission/Council FMPs have
been implemented for: sea herring; northern shrimp; winter flounder;
summer flounder/scup/black sea bass; bluefish; Spanish mackerel; and
red drum. The Secretary has implemented complementary EEZ regulations
for American lobster, Atlantic sturgeon, weakfish, and horseshoe crab.
While we support joint Commission/Council FMPs, it has been
difficult in some cases to implement joint fisheries management actions
when the Commission's management plan's requirements are less stringent
than those required for Federal plans. This has most recently been
highlighted by the difficulty in determining the 2001 summer flounder
quota. We would recommend having some mechanism to more closely align
the standards of the Commission's fishery management plans with the
national standards required for Council fishery management plans under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and complementary Secretarial EEZ regulations.
Congress recently reauthorized the Atlantic Coastal Act, (in
December 2000) through Fiscal Year 2005 for $10,000,000 each year to
the Secretary of Commerce. Recent appropriations have been $6,000,000
for Fiscal Year 2000 and $7,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2001. We find the
current funding levels appropriate.
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act implements the
Convention for the Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries, which established the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO). The United States has attended five meetings of
NAFO as a member, and hosted the most recent annual meeting of the
organization in Boston, Massachusetts. Through our participation in
NAFO, we are making important strides in securing fishing opportunities
for U.S. fishermen and carrying forward the principles of U.S.
fisheries management.
At its first meeting as a member in 1996, the United States
requested and obtained modest allocations from some of the few fish
stocks managed by NAFO that can sustain fishing. These initial gains
included small allocations of redfish, squid, and an effort allocation
for shrimp. Since this time the United States has received an
additional small allocation of shrimp (expressed in metric tonnage).
Due to the economic and physical risks associated with fishing
operations in the NAFO Regulatory Area, the United States has thus far
been unable to harvest its NAFO allocations. However, in 2000, the
United States engaged in a successful chartering operation using an
Estonian vessel to fish for NAFO Division 3M shrimp. This operation
provided a number of benefits to the United States, including: economic
benefits to the U.S. fishing interest involved; harvesting, market, and
processing information that may be of benefit in the future to U.S.
harvesters; and the beginnings of a fishing history that may be of
benefit in future allocation discussions.
Although our current allocations from NAFO remain small, the United
States continues to strive for more equitable sharing of fishing
opportunities for the future. In order to achieve this, we have
initiated and taken a leadership role in discussions designed to create
a predictable, transparent process that recognizes the conservation and
management contributions of coastal states to straddling fish stocks,
builds upon historical fishing patterns, is fair and equitable, and
enhances the conservation and management of NAFO-managed stocks. Thus,
as a coastal state and as a member of the organization, we anticipate
an increased share of fishing opportunities once stocks rebuild to
levels that can support fishing operations.
Additionally, the United States has taken a strong leadership role
in seeking more effective conservation and management of fisheries
resources under NAFO jurisdiction. The United States will assume
chairmanship of the Fisheries Commission later this year. We have also
provided leadership in the NAFO Scientific Council and have
consistently supported the management recommendations of the Council.
Additionally, we have assumed leadership roles in a number of Standing
Committees, including chairmanship of the standing committee that
designed the current NAFO scheme for addressing the fishing activities
of non-members. The United States has also pressed for timely stock
assessments and gathering of data relating to both regulated and
unregulated species occurring in the NAFO Regulatory Area, and actively
participated in discussions on bycatch, vessel monitoring, and
enforcement. Effective NAFO conservation and management is particularly
important to the United States, given that NAFO has competence to
manage the high seas portions of important domestic fish stocks that
straddle the U.S. EEZ.
Furthermore, it should be noted that NAFO provides an excellent
opportunity for the United States to pursue real-world implementation
of recent international fisheries management agreements, particularly
the United Nations Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks. The United States has pressed (with some success) for adoption
of key elements of the UN Agreement, such as: implementation of the
precautionary approach; science-based management; strong monitoring and
enforcement; effective dispute settlement; and greater transparency in
the decision-making processes of the organization. It is our hope that
continued progress on these fronts will help to make NAFO an effective
model for regional fisheries management bodies worldwide.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Fisheries
Program Authorization Act of 1983
The NOAA Marine Fisheries Program Authorization Act (NMFPAA) was
last reauthorized in 1996 for Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2000
as part of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (P.L. 104-297). The NMFPAA
authorizes a number of NOAA's marine fisheries programs under the Fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956 and laws implementing international fishery
agreements. Specifically, the NMFPAA authorizes appropriations for
specific subactivity line items within the current NMFS appropriations
budget structure. The fisheries information collection and analysis
subactivity includes funding for the collection, analysis, and
dissemination of scientific information necessary for the management of
living marine resources and associated marine habitats. The fisheries
conservation and management subactivity includes funding for the
development, implementation, and enforcement of conservation and
management measures to promote the continued use of living marine
resources, hatchery operations, habitat conservation, and protected
species management. Finally, the state and industry cooperative
programs subactivity includes funding to ensure the quality and safety
of seafood products and to provide grants to states for improving the
management of fisheries. The NMFPAA also includes an authorization for
appropriations for the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office.
The Administration recommends that the NMFPAA be reauthorized
consistent with the President's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request of
$207.7 million for these three subactivities and $3.4 million for the
Chesapeake Bay Office, and such sums as required by the President's
future requests. The appropriations authorized by the NMFPAA are in
addition to those of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Endangered Species Act,
Marine Mammal Protection Act, Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, and
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act.
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) governs U.S. participation
on the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT) and stipulates how the Secretary of Commerce shall administer
the conservation and management programs of ICCAT through research
programs and domestic fishery regulations. Funds appropriated for
implementation of ATCA are used in part to support the Advisory
Committee, the regulatory activities of NMFS'' Highly Migratory Species
Management Division, permitting and reporting activities of the
Northeast and Southeast Regional Offices, and research activities
conducted in the Southeast and Northeast Science Centers and several
external laboratories and academic institutions.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am pleased to respond
to any questions at this time.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.
Ms. Short?
STATEMENT OF CATHY SHORT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FISHERIES AND
HABITAT CONSERVATION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ms. Short. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to
present the testimony of the Department of Interior regarding
H.R. 1989, Fisheries Conservation Act of 2001.
My name is Cathy Short, and I am the assistant direction
for fishery and habitat conservation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. I will provide the Department's view on the
legislation before the Subcommittee.
The Department supports reauthorizing the Atlantic Striped
Bass Conservation Act, the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act,
the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, and
continuing that authorization for appropriations through Fiscal
Year 2006.
We consider these Acts important assets in our efforts to
conserve and restore the nation's anadromous fisheries
resources. I will comment on these three provisions of 1989
specifically, and defer to my colleagues from the Department of
Commerce and the Department of State for comments on the other
provisions contained in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act is
one of our keystone authorities, which continues to be
supported by the states and the marine fishery commissions for
the benefits to both recreational and commercial fishing.
The goals of the Striped Bass Act have been largely
realized. The Striped Bass Act is consistently perceived by the
public as the model for the successful interjurisdictional
fishery restoration efforts. It has empowered state and Federal
agencies to take the necessary steps to restore and effectively
manage striped bass populations.
Effectiveness and value of the Striped Bass Act is evident
in that Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission has declared
the Chesapeake Bay population of striped bass to be restored.
And the Act sanctions have only been implemented once.
Under the authority of the Striped Bass Act, the Service
maintains a coastwide migratory striped bass tagging database.
We implement the only annual Federal tagging program for
striped bass. This program tags bass from the Hudson River,
Chesapeake Bay, and the Albemarle-Roanoake River stocks on
their wintering grounds in the Atlantic Ocean off North
Carolina and Virginia.
The Striped Bass Act authorized a maximum amount of
$250,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service. While the Service
does not specifically identify funding authorized by the
Striped Bass Act in the President's budget, the fisheries
program does utilize general program funds to restore and
manage striped bass.
In Fiscal Year 2000, the Service reported accomplishing 23
anadromous striped bass projects in seven states along the
Atlantic coast, under additional authorities, including the
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act.
Much of this work, which costs a total of almost $950,000,
was used to further the goals of the Striped Bass Act. Three of
these projects focused on habitat restoration at a cost of over
$40,000. We feel that this habitat work is an extremely
important activity that will help maintain recovered Atlantic
striped bass populations as well as helping to restore the
remaining populations.
The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act provides authority for
the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to enter to
cooperative agreements with states and other nonFederal
interests for the conservation, development, and enhancement of
the anadromous fish. The Act allows the Service to promote
effective partnerships and restoration efforts to reverse the
decline of anadromous fishery resources.
State fishery agencies, colleges, universities, private
companies, and other nonFederal interests in 31 states
bordering the ocean or the Great Lakes may participate in these
partnerships.
Enactment of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act in 1965
teamed the Service with the states and with others to rebuild
the nation's anadromous fish resources, which were then at
extremely low levels.
Historically, river development activities, such as power,
irrigation, and flood control, did not account for the
migratory needs of our anadromous fish. Under the Act, the
Service has funded projects that generally provide benefits to
anadromous fish resources in inland situations, while the
National Marine Fisheries Service has funded projects that
benefit anadromous fish generally in coastal and oceanic areas.
However, our two agencies coordinate efforts to maximize the
potential benefits.
The Service remains a committed partner to states, tribes,
and the fishery commissions. We continue to use this authority
conduct projects to restore anadromous fish in cooperation with
states, tribes, and other Federal agencies, although we have
not requested appropriations specific for the grants to the
state program.
I will now briefly discuss the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act. This statute was modeled after the
Striped Bass Act, but the Service does not have the same
authority to determine state noncompliance. This authority
resides solely with the Secretary of Commerce.
The Atlantic Coastal Act authorizes the Service to work
with the National Marine Fisheries Service to support
interstate fishery management efforts of the commission and
states. This includes collection, management and analysis of
fishery data, law enforcement, habitat conservation, fishery
research, and fishery management planning.
Fish and Wildlife Service participates on 17 of the 20
fishery management boards established by the Atlantic States
Marine Fishery Commission, implements species management plans
where they are enhancing the goals and the intent of the
Atlantic Coastal Act.
The Service is authorized to provide funds to the
commission and states. And like the Striped Bass Act, the
Service does not have a specific authorization level.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would
like to extend the Service's and the Department's appreciation
to you and the rest of the Subcommittee for your leadership and
interest in fisheries management, conservation, and restoration
of coastal fisheries. And I would be happy to respond to any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Short follows:]
Statement of Cathleen Short, Assistant Director for Fisheries and
Habitat Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you today to present testimony for the
Department of the Interior (Department) regarding H.R. 1989, the
Fisheries Conservation Act of 2001. I will provide the Department's
view on the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984 first,
followed by comments on the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965
and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. I will
defer to my colleagues from the Department of Commerce and State
Department for any comments on the other Acts contained in the
Fisheries Conservation Act.
The Department supports reauthorizing the Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act, the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, and the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and continuing
the authorization for appropriations through Fiscal Year 2006. The
Department considers these Acts important assets in our efforts to
conserve and restore the Nation's anadromous fishery resources.
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984
Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (Striped
Bass Act) is one of our ``keystone'' authorities which continues to be
supported by the States and the Commissions for the benefits to both
recreational and commercial fishing. The goals of the Striped Bass Act
have been largely, although not entirely, realized. The Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) considers Atlantic coastal
migratory stocks of striped bass (i.e. the Chesapeake Bay population)
to be restored. The Striped Bass Act contributed significantly to
halting the decline of these stocks and enhancing the cooperative
efforts that led to their restoration. The Striped Bass Act is
consistently perceived by the public as the model for successful
interjurisdictional fishery restoration efforts. It has empowered State
and Federal agencies to take necessary steps to restore and effectively
manage striped bass populations. The effectiveness and value of the
Striped Bass Act is evident in that its sanctions have only been
implemented once.
Much of the Striped Bass Act's success can be attributed to its
requirement that management jurisdictions fully implement the Striped
Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or face a Federal moratorium,
jointly imposed by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, on
striped bass fishing in State waters. The coordinated efforts of the
States, the Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to implement effective
management measures, monitor striped bass stocks, and assess biological
and environmental factors that affect the stocks, ensured the success
to date of the restoration program. Specifically, the Service maintains
a coast-wide migratory striped bass tagging database and implements the
only annual tagging program, the Cooperative Winter Tagging Cruise,
which tags striped bass from the Hudson River, Chesapeake Bay, and
Albemarle-Roanoke River stocks on the wintering grounds in the Atlantic
Ocean off North Carolina and Virginia. Coordinated efforts are
supported by research and technical assistance from the Biological
Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's research vessels.
In addition to declaring Atlantic striped bass population recovered
in the Chesapeake Bay, stocks in the Delaware and Albemarle-Roanoke
Rivers were declared recovered by the Commission. However, much work
remains for the North Carolina striped bass stocks. The Neuse, Tar,
Pamlico and Cape Fear populations have received minimal attention so
far, and their status is not well known. It is important to note that
the Service is committed to supporting appropriate management measures
to address any declines in these recognized stocks.
The Striped Bass Act authorizes a maximum amount of $250,000 for
the Service. While the Service does not specifically identify funding
authorized by the Striped Bass Act in the President's Budget, the
Fisheries Program utilizes general program funds to restore and manage
striped bass. Due to the large number of authorizations (more than 20)
for the Service's Fisheries Program, we combine authorizations for
appropriations into two program elements for Fish and Wildlife
Management Assistance and two program elements for the National Fish
Hatchery System. This makes it difficult to specifically identify funds
authorized by the Striped Bass Act. However, in Fiscal Year 2000, the
Service reported accomplishing 23 anadromous striped bass projects in 7
States totaling $948,000 along the Atlantic Coast, under additional
authorities including the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act. Much of this work was used to further the
goals of the Striped Bass Act. This includes 3 projects totaling
$42,000 for habitat work. We feel that this is an extremely important
activity that will help maintain recovered Atlantic striped bass
populations and help restore the remaining populations.
Our work with Atlantic striped bass is not done. All agencies
involved with restoring this great fishery must remain diligent in
maintaining the health of restored populations while continuing a
coordinated effort to restore those populations yet to be recovered.
Fishing pressure is increasing again, and the Service considers
continued coordinated management of this fishery through the
Commission, under a reauthorized Striped Bass Act, to be essential.
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965
The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act provides authority for the
Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to enter into cooperative
agreements with States and other non-Federal interests for the
conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous fish,
including those in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, and gives the
Service certain authorities to raise fish for restoration purposes.
These authorities allow the Service to promote effective partnerships
and restoration efforts to reverse the decline of anadromous fishery
resources. State fishery agencies, colleges, universities, private
companies, and other non-Federal interests in 31 States bordering the
ocean or the Great Lakes may participate.
Enactment of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act in 1965 teamed
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the States and others to
rebuild the Nation's anadromous fish resources, which were then at
extremely low levels. Historically, river development activities, such
as power, irrigation, and flood control, did not account for the
migratory needs of anadromous fish. Federal, State and private water-
development projects blocked fish passage both upstream and downstream;
pollution made many streams uninhabitable; and logging and road
building degraded or blocked once productive spawning and rearing
areas.
Under the Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service has funded projects
that generally provide benefits to anadromous fish resources inland
while the National Marine Fisheries Service has funded projects that
benefit anadromous fisheries generally in the coastal and oceanic
areas. However, our two agencies coordinate efforts to maximize
potential benefits. For example, both agencies provided funds for the
Grants to States Program and Emergency Striped Bass studies which were
instrumental in recovering striped bass populations along the Atlantic
coast. The funds were used to build hatcheries, stock striped bass,
conduct research, and coordinate among states, which led to rebuilding
several stocks of striped bass to self-sustaining levels.
The Service remains a committed partner to States, Tribes and the
Fisheries Commissions. We continue to use this authority to conduct
projects to restore anadromous fish in cooperation with States, Tribes,
and other Federal agencies, although we have not requested
appropriations for the Grants to States Program.
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic
Coastal Act) was modeled after the Striped Bass Act, but the Service
does not have the same authority to determine State noncompliance. This
authority remains with the Secretary of Commerce.
The Atlantic Coastal Act authorizes the Service to work with the
National Marine Fisheries Service to support interstate fishery
management efforts of the Commission and States. This includes
collection, management, and analysis of fishery data; law enforcement;
habitat conservation; fishery research; and fishery management
planning. The Service participates on 17 of the 20 fishery management
boards.
The Service is authorized to provide funds to the Commission and
States. Unlike the Striped Bass Act, the Service does not have a
specific authorization level. The Service is authorized to provide
funds to the Commission and States. Unlike the Striped Bass Act, the
Service does not have a specific authorization level.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would like to
extend the Service's and the Department's appreciation to you and the
rest of the Subcommittee for your leadership and interest in fisheries
management, conservation and restoration of these coastal fisheries
issues, and would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Short.
Mr. Dunnigan?
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC
STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Committee. Good morning.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss H.R. 1989, the Fisheries Conservation Act of 2001. The
bill would reauthorize or extend authorizations for the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Conservation
and Management Act, NOAA's marine fish information and analysis
activities, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, and the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995. These are
important pieces of legislation that are worthy of continuing
appropriations.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission would be
pleased to support H.R. 1989. In fact, with respect to the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, we suggest that the
Committee should take this opportunity to extensively revise
and revitalize the critical state-Federal partnership for
marine and coastal fisheries.
You will notice in my written testimony there are two
obvious points that I didn't talk about in there. I didn't
mention the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act nor the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act.
So please don't get the impression that these are not
continuing to be extremely important matters for the Atlantic
coastal states and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
The bill would essentially extend authorizations that are
already good through 2003, and our commission very strongly
would support extending those authorizations through 2006 as
this bill would.
What I would like to do this morning, though--and you will
see in my written testimony--just very briefly, I would like to
highlight the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act aspects that
are contained in Title I of H.R. 1989.
The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and its predecessor,
the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act, have
been around now for almost 40 years.
And Mr. Saxton will remember our good friend, Captain Dave
Hart, from New Jersey, who 40 years ago walked these halls for
about 3 years to get the original Public Law 882D309 passed.
And it really formed, for a long time, the basis for
substantial cooperation on areas of mutual interests in
fisheries between the states and the Federal Government.
In 1986, there was a substantial revision that was made to
this program, and the Commercial Fisheries Research and
Development Act was replaced by the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act of 1986. The focus of the law was changed from
commercial fisheries really to be more oriented toward those
interjurisdictional fisheries that are shared either among the
states or between one or more states and the Federal
Government.
And the law has continued to follow in the tradition of its
predecessor as really being the foundation for state-Federal
cooperation.
The problem that we see is that this law is now 15 years
old. It has not been substantially looked at or revised in that
period of time. And we are not sure that it continues to
address the current, modern needs that we have for cooperation
in fisheries conservation and management between the states and
the Federal Government.
A lot of things have changed since 1986. We know a lot more
today, how dependent we are good information, good statistics,
and good research, and that the only way to get this is to have
the states and the Federal Government working together in
cooperation. We know we need to do a lot more today, working
with the commercial and the recreational fishing communities to
help us to get this kind of information that we need.
We know that fisheries management is a lot more complicated
than it was in 1986. Remember, just last month, Mr. Chairman,
we were here talking about fishing capacity. Fifteen years ago,
we were talking about ways of getting more vessels into the
fishing industry so that we could go after underutilized
species.
Look at habitat. I know it is a subject dear to the
Chairman's heart. We know much more today about the critical
nexus between fisheries habitat and productive and healthy fish
stocks; 95 percent of our valuable EEZ fish stocks reside at
one or more important life stages within state waters in
coastal areas. This is another area where the states and the
Federal Government have a mutual interest. They have to work
together.
And just last year, Congress supplied another $15 million,
and we hope that will be able to continue, for cooperative
state law enforcement programs.
So what were learning more and more is that this program
that got started 40 years ago and is continuing today is really
at the heart of what is going to make good sense for the states
and good sense for the Federal Government as we continue to
address the important issues that we both legitimately have in
marine fisheries and in coastal fisheries.
I am going to close, Mr. Chairman, with a commercial for
CARA. The House or Representatives last year took the lead and
overwhelmingly passed the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
And as I say in my written testimony, a fully funded CARA would
address the kinds of problems that I raised in my testimony for
cooperation between the states and the Federal Government.
I know the Resources Committee is continuing to work on
this matter, and I encourage you to continue to do so.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity, and I would be
glad to try to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:]
Statement of John H. Dunnigan, Executive Director, Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
H.R. 1989, the Fisheries Conservation Act of 2001. The bill would
reauthorize or extend authorizations for the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act, the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, NOAA's marine fish
information and analysis activities, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
of 1975, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995.
These are important pieces of legislation that are worthy of continuing
appropriations. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission would
be pleased to support H.R. 1989. In fact, with respect to the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, we suggest that the
Committee should take this opportunity to extensively revise and
revitalize the critical state-Federal partnership for marine and
coastal fisheries.
INTERJURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES ACT OF 1986
The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, and its predecessor,
the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act, have served as
the traditional cornerstone of the state-Federal partnership for almost
40 years. This legislation has enabled the states to undertake a vast
array of programs to support state and Federal concerns in marine
fisheries. Under this program, funds appropriated by Congress are
apportioned to the states according to a statutory formula. The
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 was a thorough revision of
this program, focusing attention on recreational as well as commercial
fisheries, and emphasizing those areas where state-Federal and
interstate cooperation is essential.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have the time today to recount all of the
wonderful work that the states are doing under this program. Every two
years, the National Marine Fisheries Service reports to the Congress on
state activities under this program. State agencies across the country
are carrying out the full range of fisheries conservation activities
for the most important species we have, including many that are managed
by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regional Fishery
Management Councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. The activities address fishery information, research
and stock assessment, conservation planning, stock enhancement, habitat
conservation, aquatic nuisance control, and law enforcement. Many
important Federal fishery conservation programs rely on the state
activities that are funded under the interjurisdictional fisheries
program.
The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 was well-designed to
meet the challenges of the mid-1980s. But much has changed in the world
of fisheries conservation and management in the past fifteen years. We
are now more aware than ever of the critical need for good fishery and
fishery resource information to support regulatory decisions. The
critical nexus between productive fisheries and their habitat is better
and more broadly understood. The marine fisheries constituency has
broadened, with greater participation from recreational fishing and
environmental interests, in addition to the traditional commercial
fisheries community. We now hear as much, if not more, about
controlling fishing capacity as providing for fishery development. New
technologies, such as advances in analytical and communications
capabilities, are dramatically increasing our capability to understand
and share information. And the roles and capabilities of the state and
Federal institutions have continued to evolve, each with their relative
strengths. With all of these changes, we believe it is time to consider
updating our approach to interjurisdictional fisheries cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, we at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
have given serious consideration to the Interjurisdictional Fisheries
Act of 1986. We have talked with our sister interstate marine fisheries
commissions, and many other state and Federal officials. For the
moment, these ideas are our own, although we expect that they could
receive wide support. Our suggestion to the Committee is that you not
simply reauthorize the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, but rather
expand upon it. What is needed today is nothing short of a
revitalization of and a recommitment to the state-Federal partnership
in marine fisheries.
The House of Representatives started down this road last year when
it overwhelmingly passed H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act. The House Resources Committee, including you Mr. Chairman along
with virtually all of the leaders of this subcommittee, recognized the
need to reinvest in state programs for fisheries, wildlife, and
conservation. The failure of CARA to be enacted in the closing days of
the 106th Congress does not mean that the important needs that it would
have addressed are any less pressing now than they were a year ago.
We believe that the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986
should be strengthened and expanded to meet the recognized needs for a
strong state-Federal partnership in marine fisheries today. The Act is
now fifteen years old, and has not been significantly revised during
that time, despite the major changes that have occurred in coastal and
marine fisheries. A recharged Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act should
contain a clear and concise recognition of and commitment to the
special relationship that exists between the states and the Federal
Government in marine fisheries. A good place to start, for example, is
with fisheries statistics. In the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the
Congress directed the Secretary to develop recommendations for the
implementation of a national fishery information system on a regional
basis (16 U.S.C. 1881). The report was prepared and delivered, and
relied strongly on the cooperative efforts of the states and their
three interstate marine fisheries commissions. The states and the
National Marine Fisheries Service have been moving toward a set of
fully integrated, cooperative fishery statistics programs. It is
important for the National Marine Fisheries Service to play a national
coordinating, policy, and standard setting role. The states bring
strengths to the table in the operational sense of data collection and
management. We need a national commitment to a series of regional
statistics programs that takes advantage of the strengths that each of
the partners can bring to the table.
This is also true for cooperative fisheries regulatory planning. In
addition to the responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the Regional Fishery Management Councils under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Federal
Government has a significant concern over the stewardship of coastal
fishery resources that do not come under the regulatory purview of the
MSFCMA. The need for the states to step forward and address these
resources of national interest has never been greater.
The same could be said for responsibilities for habitat and for
fisheries research. As a result of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, there
is a new emphasis on essential fish habitat. And more attention is
being paid to interspecies fishery dynamics, including ecosystems
analysis and management with its tremendous data and analytical
demands. We have to remember that 95% of Federally managed fisheries
spend critical parts of their lives in fishery habitat that is included
within state waters. Only by working closely with the states and
investing in state capabilities can the Federal Government reach its
fishery habitat protection and restoration objectives. With regard to
fisheries research, states have long been a source of cooperative
assistance for the Federal Government. Today, a new emphasis is being
placed upon cooperative efforts with fishermen and other non-
traditional sources of data and information. States, being closer to
individual fishing areas and constituencies, are uniquely positioned to
help craft cooperative research that uses fisherman capabilities to
meet the scientific needs of fishery managers. States are also in a
position to help in addressing serious concerns about aquatic nuisance
species, invasive species, and toxic blooms--issues that demand a
response from both the habitat and research perspective.
The states are also in a position to contribute significantly to
the effectiveness of marine fisheries law enforcement. The three
interstate marine fisheries commissions are the focus for bringing
state and Federal law enforcement personnel together to address their
mutual needs and objectives. States have had cooperative law
enforcement agreements with the National Marine Fisheries Service for
more than 25 years. Last year, Congress appropriated $15 million for
cooperative state law enforcement agreements. We are finding that state
and Federal law enforcement personnel each have different areas where
they can operate most effectively, in a mutual and cooperative effort.
A newly revitalized ``Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act for the
21st Century'' ought to address the critical state-Federal areas of
mutual interest. It should unequivocally articulate the commitment of
the Federal Government to work closely with the states wherever
possible to get the job done. It should also devote the fiscal
resources necessary to carry out this essential partnership program.
Let me be clear: what I am suggesting is a major commitment and
investment in state-Federal partnership programs. The need is there,
and the opportunity is there. For example, we all eagerly anticipate
that shortly the House Resources Committee will once again demonstrate
its leadership in fisheries and wildlife conservation by moving H.R.
701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. CARA will set aside $500
million for the states for coastal conservation and impact assistance.
The language of H.R. 701 indicates that coastal and marine fisheries
issues are a primary use for this funding. It is not hard to imagine
that under these provisions $150 million or $200 million will be
devoted to state fisheries programs. This is, frankly, the type of
commitment that the state-Federal partnership in marine fisheries
deserves.
I am not suggesting that the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act
should compete with CARA. Quite the opposite. The earliest enactment of
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act is the highest legislative
priority for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and all of
our coastal state members; and much of what I am suggesting would be
addressed by a properly funded CARA. The substantive ideas that a
revitalized commitment to interjurisdictional fisheries would provide
would provide a blueprint for the Congress and the states in the
development and implementation of coastal fisheries conservation
programs under CARA.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have a draft bill to lay before you today
that will do all of this. I am sure that many others will have
particular perspectives that should be considered and worked into new
legislation. But the principles are simple. The states are not just
another constituency for Federal policy makers. The states and the
Federal Government share, in a unique way, the public trust
responsibilities to safeguard the people's interests in marine
fisheries resources. We must continually work together in the important
areas of statistics, fisheries management, habitat, research and law
enforcement. We must each strive wherever possible to achieve mutual
success. We can succeed together, or we can fail separately. The choice
belongs to all of us.
ANADROMOUS FISH CONSERVATION ACT
Mr. Chairman, I would also like particularly to recommend that the
Committee approve legislation extending the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act. This legislation has, for almost as long as the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and its predecessor, been a
foundation for state-Federal cooperation in the conservation and
management of this country's valuable anadromous fishery resources.
This Act is the only national expression of the Federal commitment
regarding the importance of anadromous fish species. We need to
remember that this is a truly national program; for even though we are
all aware of the critical problems in trying to conserve salmon on the
Pacific coast, anadromous fisheries are critical to the Atlantic coast
and the Gulf of Mexico as well.
In addition to providing continuing support for salmon conservation
along the Pacific coast, on the Atlantic coast funds appropriated under
this Act have been applied by the states to critical problems for shad,
river herring and sturgeon. In the Gulf of Mexico, the conservation
needs of species such as shad, Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act), and Gulf striped bass,
were recognized by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission many
years ago. The single most important factor impeding actions to address
the conservation needs for many of these species in the Atlantic and
Gulf has been the lack of sufficient funding to implement management
and restoration actions.
Anadromous fish species represent important components of the biota
of river and nearshore estuarine habitats along this country's coasts.
Because anadromous species use virtually all habitats in rivers and
estuaries during some portion of their life cycles, they can serve as
significant indicators of the overall health of the ecosystem. There
have been declines in the size and distribution of anadromous fish
populations nation-wide, and it is evident because of their life
histories that any positive actions to restore the health of anadromous
fish populations will provide positive benefits to the entire watershed
in which these populations occur. They are clearly deserving of the
Federal commitment evidenced by the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act.
An interesting thing has happened to the appropriations
authorization under this Act. In the 1980s, the authorization reached
as high at $25 million annually; although the actual appropriated
levels were much lower. But these authorized levels have actually been
on a steady decline for the past fifteen years. The authorized level
for appropriations last year was only $4.25 million; and recent
appropriations levels have been on the order of only $2.1 million. So
what has happened over the past fifteen years? Are striped bass, shad,
sturgeon, and salmon any less important to the nation today that they
used to be? I don't believe so Mr. Chairman, and I am sure that the
Committee will not either. I strongly urge that the appropriations
authorization for the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act be increased to
$6 million for Fiscal Year 2001 and Fiscal Year 2001, $8 million for
Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004, and $10 million for Fiscal Year 2005 and
Fiscal Year 2006. This would still be less than half of the authorized
level from the mid-1980s. And then we will look forward to working hard
with the members of the Committee to see those authorizations realized
in the appropriations process.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, all of the programs covered by H.R. 1989 are
critical, each in its own way, to the success of our cooperative and
mutual efforts in marine fisheries. We believe that appropriations
should continue to be authorized for each of them. In the case of the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, we believe that Congress should
significantly expand and strengthen the statutory basis for the mutual
cooperation between the Federal Government and the states. We also
believe that the appropriations for the Anadromous Fish Conservation
Act should be increased over the next few years, commensurate with the
critical importance of these resources to the Nation. We look forward
to working with your staff to continue to expand on these ideas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to try to answer any
questions.
SUGGESTED OUTLINE FOR A REVITALIZED INTERJURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES ACT
H.R. 1989--Title I: Interjurisdictional Fisheries
Section 101. Short Title
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act for the 21st Century
Section 102. Findings, Purposes and Policy (Definitions if Necessary)
Section 103. Authority of the Secretary
The Secretary is authorized broadly to work cooperatively with the
States on matters of mutual interest.
Section 104. National State-Federal Fisheries Information Program
Section 104. Cooperative Fisheries Management Planning
Section 105. Cooperative Fisheries Research and Assessment
Section 106. Cooperative Fisheries Habitat Conservation
Section 107. Cooperative Fisheries Law Enforcement
Section 108. Allocations of Funding
Section 109. Authorization of Appropriations
Section 110. Repeals
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Dunnigan.
Ms. Chasis?
STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Chasis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee for this opportunity to testify.
I am a Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, and I would like to address two of the laws that this
legislation, H.R. 1989, seeks to reauthorize: the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and the Atlantic
Tunas Convention Act.
Recent action has illustrated the potential for serious
conflict between the Federal Government and state management of
many Atlantic marine fish populations that--
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sorry, Ms. Chasis, I didn't catch one
word.
Ms. Chasis. Sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. Serious what?
Ms. Chasis. Conflicts.
Mr. Gilchrest. Conflicts.
Ms. Chasis. Between Federal and state management of many
Atlantic marine fish populations that migrate between Federal
and state waters.
Such conflicts could seriously compromise, indeed, severely
threaten, the achievement of important conservation goals.
Unfortunately, there is nothing explicit in the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Act to prevent such conflicts from arising.
And we would like the Committee to consider addressing that
issue.
For example, the Act simply says that in preparing a plan
for a fishery located in both state waters and the EEZ, the
commission shall consult with appropriate councils to determine
areas where such coastal fishery management plan may complement
council fishery management plans.
However, the Act does not explicitly require that the
commission plan actually be complementary or consistent with
the council/NMFS plans or that implementing regulations and
quotas be complementary or consistent.
Short of the Secretary of Commerce's preemption of state
regulation under the Magnuson Act--and there is a provision for
that in Section 306(b)--there appears to be no clear mechanism
in current law to ensure consistency between conservation and
management measures imposed by the commission and those of the
council and NMFS.
The resulting potential conflict was illustrated recently
when the commission adopted a different and higher summer
flounder quota for 2001 than the quota adopted by the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS.
The commission quota was initially set at 20.5 million
pounds, approximately 2.6 million pounds higher than the
council and NMFS's quota of 17.9 million pounds. From late last
year until May of this year, it appeared there would be
conflicting management regimes for this valuable fish
population and that the important effort to get the rebuilding
of this stock back on track, as required by Federal law and the
appellate court decision in NRDC v. Daley, would be undermined.
Only after NRDC, Environmental Defense, Center for Marine
Conservation, and National Audubon, represented by the Ocean
Law Project of Earthjustice, went to court to enforce the
settlement agreement implementing the court decision, and only
after NMFS had threatened to close the Federal EEZ to summer
flounder fishing for a period of time, did the commission adopt
the same quota as the council and NMFS.
The crisis was averted, but there is no clear provision of
the Act to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future
in this or other fisheries.
Similar problems, in fact, have already arisen with respect
to spiny dogfish, a slow-growing species of shark for which
stock recovery from overfishing will already require close to
two decades, and also with respect to scup, a severely depleted
stock.
While currently the commission has in place emergency
measures aimed at closing state waters once the Federal dogfish
quota is reached, the commission has yet to adopt permanent
measures that would align the state and Federal management
program.
At their last meeting, the commission considered and
narrowly rejected a state waters dogfish quota more than double
that for Federal waters. Such an increase is intended to allow
for continued directed fishing on depleted mature female
dogfish sharks, a strategy clearly discouraged under the
Federal plan.
Likely to be reconsidered in July by the commission, such
inconsistent controls stand to derail the entire East Coast
spiny dogfish Federal rebuilding program and put an
exceptionally vulnerable species at increased risk.
To prevent this kind of inconsistency, we would like to
recommend that the Committee consider amending the Act to
require that where this a Federally approved fishery management
plan, the commission's plan be consistent with that plan, and
additionally, that actions taken by the commission pursuant to
its plan be consistent with quota and other conservation and
management decisions of the council and NMFS.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, we also would like
to endorse the recommendations of the Marine Fish Conservation
Network with respect to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act,
another law that is sought to be reauthorized in this
legislation.
We support the position of the network that the Act should
be amended to repeal the language that prevents or hinders the
U.S. from implementing management measures that are more
conservation-oriented than those recommended under
international agreement.
In addition, we would like Congress to encourage NMFS to
provide for increased involvement of conservation groups in the
formulation of U.S. positions at ICCAT, the international body
responsible for Atlantic-wide conservation of Atlantic tunas
and billfishes.
With that, I would like to conclude and would be happy to
answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis follows:]
Statement of Sarah Chasis, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Natural
Resources Defense Council concerning H.R. 1989, a bill to reauthorize
various fishery conservation management programs. The Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) is a national environmental organization with
over 450,000 members nationwide that is committed to protecting natural
resources and public health. We have an oceans program that works to
protect valuable ocean resources and, to promote healthy and
sustainable marine fish populations by preventing overfishing,
minimizing bycatch and protecting fish habitat.
I will focus my testimony today on two of the laws that this
legislation seeks to reauthorize: the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act (the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act); and,
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. In both cases, I will discuss
concerns that we have with these laws and the solutions we propose to
address these problems.
Recent action has illustrated the potential for serious conflict
between the Federal and state management of the many Atlantic marine
fish populations that migrate between Federal and state waters. The
conflicting quotas that were initially set for summer flounder for this
year are an example of this problem. Such conflicts could seriously
compromise, indeed severely threaten, the achievement of important
conservation goals. Unfortunately, there is nothing explicit in the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act to prevent such conflicts from arising.
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act precludes the United States from
adopting more stringent controls on fishing than are set by
international bodies such as the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). We believe that this provision
inappropriately ties the United States' hands and should be amended to
allow our nation to adopt more stringent measures where it is in the
interest of the resource to do so. We also believe that the
environmental community needs a stronger role in the formulation of
U.S. positions at ICCAT.
The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act
Recently, conflicts have emerged between the quotas and management
regime established by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(the Commission or ASMFC), on the one hand, and the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (the Council) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), on the other. Such conflicts threaten to
seriously undermine important conservation goals of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) related to
preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished populations.
Currently, there is no explicit requirement in the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Act for consistency of coastal fishery management plans and
quotas developed under that Act with Federally approved fishery
management plans, regulations and quotas adopted under the FCMA. The
Act simply says is that in preparing a plan for a fishery located in
both state waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), ``the
Commission shall consult with appropriate Councils to determine areas
where such coastal fishery management plan may complement Council
fishery management plans.'' 16 U.S.C. Section 5104(a)(1)(emphasis
added). However, the Act does not explicitly require that the
Commission plan actually be complementary or consistent with the
Council/NMFS'' plans, or that implementing regulations and quotas be
complementary or consistent. Short of the Secretary of Commerce's
preemption of state regulation under Section 306(b) of the FCMA, 16
U.S.C. Section 1856(b), there appears to be no clear mechanism in
current law to ensure consistency between the conservation and
management measures imposed by the Commission and those of the Council
and NMFS.
The potential for serious conflict as a result was dramatically
illustrated recently when the Commission adopted a different and higher
summer flounder quota for 2001 than the quota adopted by the Council
and NMFS. The Commission quota was initially set at 20.5 million
pounds, approximately 2.6 million pounds higher than the Council and
NMFS'' quota of 17.9 million pounds. From late last year until May of
this year, it appeared that there would be conflicting management
regimes for this valuable fish population and that the important effort
to get the rebuilding of this stock back on track, as required by
Federal law and the appellate court decision in NRDC v. Daley, 209
F.3rd 74 (D.C.Cir. 2000), would be undermined.
Only after environmental plaintiffs, including NRDC, Environmental
Defense, Center for Marine Conservation and National Audubon,
represented by the Ocean Law Project of Earthjustice, went to court to
enforce the settlement agreement implementing the court's decision and
only after NMFS had threatened to close the Federal Exclusive Economic
Zone to summer flounder fishing for a period of time did the Commission
back down and adopt the same quota as the Council and NMFS. A crisis
was averted, but there is no clear provision of the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Act to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future
in this or other migratory fisheries.
Similar problems in fact have already arisen with respect to spiny
dogfish - a slow growing species of shark for which stock recovery from
overfishing will already require close to two decades and with respect
to scup, a severely depleted stock. While currently the ASMFC has in
place emergency measures aimed at closing state waters once the Federal
dogfish quota is reached, the Commission has yet to adopt permanent
measures that would align the state and Federal management programs. At
their last meeting, the ASMFC considered and narrowly rejected a state
waters dogfish quota more than double that for Federal waters. Such an
increase, promoted by Massachusetts, is intended to allow for continued
directed fishing on depleted mature dogfish sharks--a strategy that is
clearly discouraged under the Federal plan. Likely to be reconsidered
in July by the ASMFC, such inconsistent controls stand to derail the
entire east coast Federal spiny dogfish rebuilding program and put an
exceptionally vulnerable species an increased risk of further, long
standing population damage.
In the case of scup, the Council and NMFS are increasingly acceding
their legal responsibilities to the Commission, despite the severely-
overfished status of the stock. For 2001, NMFS approved a quota that
was nearly twice the scientific recommendation, largely on the basis
that this was the quota set by the Commission.
To prevent this kind of inconsistency, NRDC recommends that the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act be amended to require that, where there
is a Federally approved Fishery Management Plan, the Commission's
coastal fishery plan be consistent with that Federal plan and,
additionally, that actions taken by the Commission pursuant to its plan
be consistent with quota and other conservation and management
decisions of the Council and NMFS.
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
One of the other acts before this Subcommittee for reauthorization
is the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). NRDC supports the position
of the Marine Fish Conservation Network that this Act should be amended
to repeal the language that prevents or hinders the U.S. from
implementing management measures that are more conservative than those
recommended under international agreement. In addition, we would like
Congress to encourage NMFS to provide for increased involvement of
conservation groups in the formulation of the U.S. position at ICCAT,
the international body responsible for Atlantic-wide conservation of
tunas and billfishes.
In 1990, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act were amended in a manner which precludes
U.S. fishery managers from promulgating any regulation which has the
effect of ``decreasing a quota, allocation or fishing mortality level''
recommended by ICCAT. Since the enactment of this provision, the
achievement of domestic and international management objectives for
highly migratory species (again, with the exception of large coastal
sharks) has been greatly diminished in that NMFS will not make any
rules which may be construed as denying American fishermen a
``reasonable opportunity'' to fully harvest (i.e., land) an ICCAT-
assigned quota. The unfortunate effect of this provision has been that
NMFS has functionally exempted some highly migratory species from
conservation measures applied to all other marine fish species.
Industry has used this provision to effectively defer needed
conservation and management actions to the international arena. As a
result, NMFS has done little more than implement ICCAT quotas and
allocate them among domestic user groups. Where no ICCAT
recommendations exist, but the stocks are fully-utilized or approaching
an overfished condition, no precautionary measures have been taken.
Virtually all significant management actions are deferred to ICCAT.
ICCAT routinely responds slowly to problems in the fisheries and
when it does act, all too frequently sets quotas (total landings
levels) too high and minimum size limits (to protect pre-spawning age
fish) too low. The U.S. is unable to do its part for rebuilding, even
when such measures, rather than disadvantaging U.S. fishermen, could
significantly enhance the status of stocks residing primarily in and
around our EEZ.
The ATCA provision is also cited by NMFS as a reason not to take
measures to minimize bycatch mortality, through area closures and gear
modifications. NMFS argues that doing so might prevent U.S. fishermen
from landing their entire ICCAT allowance, in contravention of ATCA.
NRDC believes that the decision of whether or not a more
conservative U.S. management regime would benefit U.S. fishermen and
the stocks they fish should be made on a fishery-by-fishery basis, on
its own merits, based on the best science available. To do otherwise is
to deny the differences in fish stocks and the fisheries directed at
them and to severely impair the ability of U.S. managers to meet their
responsibilities to conserve and manage these resources for the benefit
of the American public.
We urge Congress to amend the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act to
remove language limiting U.S. authority to conserve and manage Atlantic
highly migratory species when necessary to achieve domestic
conservation and management goals.
Finally, the environmental community does not have adequate
representation in the deliberations of the U.S. delegation to ICCAT.
Currently, only 3 of 25 members of the advisory committee to the U.S.
section are non-industry aligned conservationists or scientists. In
addition, there is no dedicated ICCAT conservation commissioner, where
there are currently government, industry and recreational
commissioners. We request that the Committee consider taking action to
ensure a better balance in the formulation by the U.S. of its decisions
leading up to and at ICCAT.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Chasis.
On that note, the conflict that Ms. Chasis was discussing
with the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and the examples of
summer flounder and dogfish, Mr. Dunnigan, you mentioned in
your testimony that you had some suggested reforms to the Act.
Would your suggested reforms resolve some of the issues that
arose during the summer flounder situation and perhaps the
reference to the management plan for dogfish that Ms. Chasis
suggested?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is possible that the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act should, I think, address cooperative fishery
management between the states and the Federal Government. I
think if you want to look specifically at the issues of summer
flounder or scup or dogfish, however, you have to the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, which is more
important and more directly applicable.
To address those, I think it is important to note, first of
all, I am not sure how much of a problem we have here. I don't
think that we have yet fully exhausted all of the opportunities
that exist between the states and the Federal Government,
between our various management institutions, including the
councils, to sit down and try to work out our problems under
the existing law.
In the cases that Ms. Chasis raised, you know, with summer
flounder, the states agreed to go the way of the Federal
Government--even though it was inconsistent with our fishery
management plan. With spiny dogfish, we have agreed to require
the states by emergency action to close their waters.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, I guess--
Mr. Dunnigan. Ms. Chasis is correct. It is controversial,
but so far--
Mr. Gilchrest. I think I am getting--
Mr. Dunnigan. --we are working together.
Mr. Gilchrest. What I am getting from Ms. Chasis is that
perhaps that would not have happened--Ms. Chasis, you can jump
in here if you want to--if there wasn't the threat of or the
actual court challenge.
Mr. Dunnigan. Well, it is very complicated. The whole issue
derived from a court challenge. I mean, in this instance, the
National Marine Fisheries Service was put in the position of
having to depart from the fishery management plan that we had
agreed to because of the litigation. And then the question was,
well, how do we get over the hump of resolving the divergence
between state and Federal management?
Dr. Hogarth has worked very hard to try to bring us beyond
these problems, and I think we have made a lot of progress. You
are aware that 2 weeks ago the Heinz Center facilitated a
roundtable discussion that I think really opened a lot of doors
of communication between the states and the councils and NMFS
and the commercial and recreational constituencies and the
environmental community.
And I think that there is a lot that we are going to
accomplish by continuing to work together. I am not sure we are
at the point yet were we need to change the law to make it work
better.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, do you want to comment on that?
Dr. Hogarth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are in the midst of sort of a negotiated roundtable with
the Heinz Center. We will have another 2- to 3-day session
probably in the next 2 to 4 weeks. We are putting together
white papers now on some of the issues that came up.
I am hoping that that will lead us toward a mechanism that
will not only address summer flounder but other issues that may
come up.
I think, as I said briefly, the real difficulty right now
is the fact that we do have different standards, but I am not
sure that we need to change the Atlantic--
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, when you say, ``We have
different standards,'' is that NMFS has different standards
from the commission?
Dr. Hogarth. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act that the
council operates under, we have the 10 national standards that
we have to look at, whereas under the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Act, they do not have the same, you know, standards
that they have to look at. They have more leeway in the way
they manage.
Saying that, I think that managing in state waters needs
some more leniency in how they manage than overall when you are
talking about the EEZ and boats that move--
Mr. Gilchrest. Who needs more leniency?
Dr. Hogarth. Sir?
Mr. Gilchrest. You said--
Dr. Hogarth. I think that the states need some leeway in
managing state waters differently from the way we manage the
EEZ, because of the fact that you are talking about fish within
3 miles. They manage what has landed. We manage the fisheries
that move in the EEZ further and differently.
And I just think that the states probably need a little bit
different mechanism.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you comment on that, Ms. Chasis?
Ms. Chasis. Yes. I think we feel that it would be useful to
have a clear articulation in the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act
of substantive standards that apply to the development of plans
and that those standards, from a conservation standpoint, be
more consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Mr. Gilchrest. So are you disagreeing with Dr. Hogarth
about more leeway for the states?
Ms. Chasis. Yes, I am, because it seems to me that there
should be some basic, minimum conservation standards that would
apply, whether it is in state waters or Federal.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there are no minimum conservation
standards now?
Ms. Chasis. That is correct. There is nothing--the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Act talks about the need to conserve the
stock, but it doesn't then go into any specificity, whereas in
the Magnuson Act, as Dr. Hogarth indicated, you have the
national standards, you have the rebuilding requirements that
exist.
So what this has meant is that you have the potential--and
we saw in the instance of summer flounder and the potential
exists now with dogfish--to have a different, more lenient
management regime for state waters than for Federal waters, yet
you are talking about the same fish population.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Dunnigan?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is not always that simple. The Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Act also requires the commission to adopt our own set
of standards. And we have done that.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are saying that the states along the
Atlantic coast have standards?
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes, we do. And they are very similar to what
you will find in Section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Frankly, in some ways, I think they are better. And I think
Congress ought to consider looking at our standards and
consider applying some of them to the Federal management
program. But that is a separate issue.
Those standards to do exist. And we are required to follow
them, and our state members are required to follow them as
well.
So a lot of things might not be completely spelled out in
the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Management Act, but I think that
arose from a recognition by Congress that things are different
sometimes in the states than they are in the EEZ.
Remember that we have 22 fishery management plans, and we
have all of this maelstrom revolving around, essentially, three
species: summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. There is a
lot more that we do.
And remember also that in many instances right now, it is
the states under these management plans that have the ability
to manage these fisheries while the Federal regulatory
processes are catching up to us.
Right now, the states are implementing restrictions in
their recreational fisheries, very dire restrictions from
summer flounder and for scup. And so far, we don't have rules
from the Federal Government to manage that fishery, because of
all the processes they have to go through.
So we are very reluctant to go down the path of trying to
commit the states to standards and procedures that are not
always working the way we would all want them to, even in the
Federal process.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are saying you can do it a lot faster
than the Federal Government?
Mr. Dunnigan. I don't think there is any question about
that. I think everybody agrees to that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
We may have a second round of questions, but at this time I
will yield to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to add a couple of questions to the line of
thinking that the Chairman has outlined here, just so that I
can understand exactly what is the source of contention here.
Dr. Hogarth, in your testimony, you mentioned that it has
been difficult to implement joint fisheries management plans
between the councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) when the commission's plans are less
stringent than the council plans that have been pursuant to the
requirements of the Magnuson Act.
This is going to be an ongoing problem, and you recommend
that there be a mechanism to more closely align the standards
of the commission's plans with the national standards required
for the council fishery management plans under the Magnuson
Act.
Do you have a specific suggestion as to what this mechanism
should be? And should the Congress legislate this mechanism?
Dr. Hogarth. At this point in time, I would rather wait
until we get through the process we are undergoing right now
with the Heinz Center. I think part of that is looking at if
there needs to be legislative fixes. And at the present time, I
would rather not second guess that process.
Mr. Underwood. Well, would you recommend, then, that we
hold off on reauthorization until the process is completed?
Dr. Hogarth. I would hope not because I think we can work
the process. We have worked through it on summer flounder.
I think summer flounder, as Jack Dunnigan explained, was
somewhat of a unique case, because we did have a lawsuit that
required us to do something to be in compliance with the
Federal court, that the ASMFC was not required. They were not
sued, they were not part of the lawsuit. And so, we had to act
independent.
And while we had to meet standards and certain restrictions
from the court, the ASMFC did not have to. And they were in
compliance with their plan at that time. It is just that we did
have two separate standards and two separate quotas, and had to
reach a quota that would be in compliance with the Federal
court.
You know, there is some question as to whether the ASMFC
can be sued. You would have to sue each individual state,
whereas you can sue National Marine Fisheries Service and get
at the council process.
But the ASMFC seems to be--which is probably a good
mechanism--free from lawsuits.
I think there is some potential problems there due to the
fact that they have their standards, as Jack said, which some
of them are good, but we have other standards right now we are
not sure will enable us to use what they call conservation
equivalences. That means the state can set certain size limits
in seasons and regulations that can account for conservation
equivalency. It is not clear that we can do that under the
council process and how we would do that, which gives them a
little more--
Mr. Underwood. So how do we bring resolution to this? Is
there some defect in the process of resolving these
differences? Or is there inadequate attention to--
Dr. Hogarth. That is why we went to the Heinz Center. We
felt like we would bring in the environmental groups, the
plaintiffs, the recreational leaders, the commercial leaders,
the council and ASMFC, we brought the states in. And we spent
two-and-a-half days.
And out of that, we have come up with several issues that
we are now trying to write white papers on to sort of go back
out for discussion with this same group and to make
recommendations at the next meeting on what needs to be done.
I would rather wait for that process to be completed,
hopefully by mid to the end of July, rather than to take some
action that may not be the correct action.
Mr. Underwood. Okay, Ms. Chasis--
Sure, go ahead.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am just going to interrupt just for a
second, Mr. Underwood, if you don't mind.
Dr. Hogarth has to leave at 10:30, and Mr. Saxton had just
one question for Dr. Hogarth.
Mr. Underwood. Sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. If we can get that in, just before he
leaves. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hogarth, in the last Striped Bass Reauthorization Act,
we inserted language to require a study of striped bass
population in terms of year class or size class as a result of
observations that members of the Committee have had relative to
the striped bass population, namely that fishermen report
anecdotally that there is a large population of relatively
small striped bass and seemingly not very many larger striped
bass, say over the length of, say, 32 inches or so.
There is language in your written testimony which indicates
that we didn't need to do that because we already have the
information. I don't have the information, and I want to know
when we are going to get the report from NMFS that is required
by the law created by the last reauthorization.
Dr. Hogarth. I am not sure at this point, but I will get
back to you--it is on its way right now, I was just told.
Mr. Saxton. Well, thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Have a happy day.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Okay, thank you.
Dr. Hogarth, since you are leaving soon, let me get in my
other question for you.
[Laughter.]
In her testimony, Ms. Chasis stated that the provision in
the Act the precludes U.S. fishery managers from promulgating
any regulation, which has the effect of decreasing a quota
allocation or fishing mortality level recommended by ICCAT, has
been cited by NMFS as a reason not to adopt measures to
minimize bycatch mortality in our highly migratory fisheries.
How can this be if you are required to adopt such measures
under the Magnuson Act?
Dr. Hogarth. I am not sure I have the answer for you.
[Laughter.]
I will look into that, but I don't know that I can answer
that right now. I will--
Mr. Underwood. Well, is that true? I mean, is that the
basic position taken by--
Dr. Hogarth. I wasn't aware that it was. That is why I say
I want to check into it.
I wasn't aware that that had been the reason, but I will
check.
Mr. Underwood. Okay, all right. Thank you.
[Mr. Hogarth submitted the following information for the
record in response to the above question:]
NMFS disagrees with Ms. Chasis' testimony that current requirements
of ATCA and MagnusonStevens have ``functionally exempted'' some
Atlantic HMS from conservation measures that would otherwise apply. In
amending both ATCA and Magnuson-Stevens in 1990, Congress recognized
that most Atlantic HMS (e.g. swordfish, tuna and billfish) can be
effectively managed only through international cooperation. Clearly the
U.S. contribution to the total level of fishing mortality, whether for
target species or attributable to bycatch, is in most cases a minor
component of the ocean-wide level. Although the international
management process is not as rapid as many would like, multilateral
cooperation is critical to successful rebuilding of species taken in
fisheries prosecuted on the high seas and in the Exclusive Economic
Zones of so many countries.
Recognizing the conservation requirements of domestic laws, the
U.S. negotiators at ICCAT have advanced positions on stock rebuilding
and bycatch reduction that are expected to be more effective than
unilateral action could likely accomplish. In recent years, rebuilding
programs for bluefin tuna, swordfish and billfish have been adopted by
ICCAT. Additionally, the multilateral approach has lent support to
trade restrictive measures that can be applied against fishing nations
that are not contracting parties to ICCAT. Although much work is
required at ICCAT, the international management actions achieved are
not only consistent with U.S. law but also have served to support the
domestic commercial and recreational fishing industries relative to
foreign competition.
Mr. Underwood. Going back to the general problem, Ms.
Chasis, which you have outlined, as well as others have
outlined, as well as the Chairman has outlined, do you think we
need to legislate a solution to the problem of inconsistent
Federal and commission plans?
And was this idea discussed when the stakeholders recently
got together to discuss this problem? And if so, was there any
consensus on it?
Ms. Chasis. We do believe there is a need for a legislative
solution, and it is the one we propose, which is to require
consistency between the plans and the conservation measures.
The issue of the lack of coordination between Federal and state
management was raised but not resolved at the last stakeholder
meeting.
And actually, it is news to me that we have a meeting
coming up in the next 3 or 4 weeks, but I am sure it will be
the subject of further discussion. And we can certainly report
back to the Committee at that time.
But it seems clear, from what happened in this instance,
and what has been raised as an issue with respect to dogfish,
that there is this real issue that the commission is bound by a
different set of conservation standards, and there is not
assurance that there is going to be consistency in the
management of these very important species that migrate between
Federal and state waters.
So we think that the case is made already for legislative
action.
Mr. Underwood. Okay, thank you.
Ambassador West, in her testimony, Ms. Chasis indicated
that--she asserts that the environmental community is under-
represented in the U.S. delegation to ICCAT.
How is that delegation crafted? How is that delegation put
together?
Ms. West. We have tried very hard to involve the NGO
community in the development of U.S. positions. And I believe
that various members of the community have in fact been
involved in that process.
We have not had members of the NGO community on the
delegation every year, although there have been members of the
NGO community on the delegation in some years.
As a general matter, I would say we support and highly
value transparency, both in the development of U.S. positions
and in the operations of the commissions.
Mr. Underwood. Okay, thank you.
I have no other questions at this time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I would like to ask Mr. Dunnigan, obviously politics is
local, and there a couple of issues that are of great
importance to the fishermen of eastern North Carolina.
And I want to start with the issue of the menhaden
fisheries representation on your commission. It is my
understanding that the representative that has been serving now
is more of, instead of being on the board to make management
decisions, that they now have been reduced to an advisory
capacity. Is that true?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
The commission in April adopted a new fishery management
plan for Atlantic menhaden, and that plan revised the structure
of our management board for menhaden.
Menhaden was a unique circumstance until then, where we had
a board that was equally made up of representatives and state
representatives, and there was a lot of feeling and a lot of
discussion about the fact that we needed to change that and
make our menhaden management structure to be equal to all of
the others. And that is what the amendment to the menhaden plan
did.
It was the most obvious and controversial issue that was
contained in the amendment, and the public sentiment from up
and down the coast was overwhelmingly in favor of making the
change to the new management structure.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Dunnigan, is it true that, as it relates to
the management of this fishery, that the menhaden is one of the
most successful stories, as far as the management program deals
with the stocks?
Mr. Dunnigan. I think that menhaden management has been a
very sound program for a long time. It has reached out and
involved a wide variety of the constituency. We were
criticized, though, frankly, by a lot of people who felt that
they were left out of the process.
Menhaden is a species that is very highly dependent on
annual recruitment. It is very highly dependent upon favorable
environmental factors. And I think we have been able to try to
match the management program to the particular importance of
this resource.
And the other reason it is so important is because it
provides such a tremendous forage base for so much of the rest
of our valuable coastal fishery resources.
Mr. Jones. I guess the industry, again, just what
information has gotten to me, they just don't really understand
why they would lose this position that they had, particularly
when they have had such success story, working within the
commission.
Are you just saying that it is politics, resentment, by
other members of the commission as to why this change was made?
Mr. Dunnigan. I don't think so.
I think what has happened in menhaden over the last 10
years is that there has been a broadening of the constituency
that has come into the government and said, ``We care about
this resource.'' For a long, long time, in both the Gulf of
Mexico and the Atlantic, the constituency who came to the
states and to the National Marine Fisheries Service, because
they have always done the research out of Beaufort, was largely
the commercial constituency, largely the purse seine fleet that
was fishing for reduction purposes.
Over the last 10 years, we have seen a greater involvement
by other parts of the commercial fishing industry. The bait
fisheries, which are more predominant all along the coast,
going north from North Carolina, and the recreational community
and the environmental community have now stepped forward and
said, ``We have some concerns about this resource, too.''
So our traditional program, which dealt basically just with
the states and with the National Marine Fisheries Service on
one side, and the commercial fishing industry on the other, was
becoming less and less relevant to current circumstances,
because the people who care about the resource in a broader
sense have gotten more actively involved in the program.
But I don't think it is really a question of just trying to
be political. I think it was a question of trying to respond to
the broadening constituency that has an interest in this
fishery.
And I think even within the commercial fishing industry of
the companies that are involved, there who saw that that was
something that was going to have to happen.
And then there are others who--you know, very few us all
think monolithically. And within the commercial industry, there
was a range of views as to how that should go.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Dunnigan, let me ask you another question
before my time ends. I have to read this one to you:
It is legal for North Carolina to harvest 12-inch weakfish,
grey trout. Size limit caught in pound nets and long-haul nets
is 10 inches. Other states have different limits since the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has adopted
conservation equivalency tables whereby states can combine size
bag limits, close areas and/or seasons, and other restrictions
that enable them to be compliant with the provision of the
plan.
New York and Pennsylvania both have higher size limits than
North Carolina. In fact, a majority of the fresh fish from
North Carolina is sent to markets in New York City, Baltimore,
and Philadelphia. Without those markets, North Carolina
commercial fishing would be doomed.
However, these states will not allow North Carolina's legal
fish to enter their states.
What will your commission do to facilitate allowing North
Carolina's legal-harvested fish to these major markets in
Philadelphia and New York?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
It is a good question, and it gets to one of the hearts of
what we are trying to do in interstate fishery management,
because, especially for some of these species that are
predominantly coastal, they change during the year.
The summer flounder fishery in southern New England is a
lot different from what you see in North Carolina. And we
allow, in our weakfish plan, the opportunity for the states to
craft a program that makes sense so that everybody has to take
a reduction, but you don't require a one-size-fits-all rule, so
that everybody has to take the same reduction, and then it has
vastly differential impacts.
The States of North Carolina and New York, specifically on
weakfish, have been working together for the last couple of
years to put together a program so that New York can
effectively enforce the rules that it has to have in its area
and at the same time allow for valid interstate commerce for
legally harvest species from other areas.
In species like striped bass, for example, we have tagging
programs that are predominant along the coasts.
I know that on weakfish, the two states have been working
together. I have not recently gotten an update on where they
are.
What our commission does is it creates the opportunity for
the states to sit down together and work out these problems.
And I would be glad to get together with the directors of North
Carolina's and New York's agencies and talk to them about where
this is and get you an answer.
Mr. Jones. I would appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
In regard to the menhaden situation, I think Mr. Dunnigan
gave about as a good answer as anybody could have given, based
on new understandings of environmental issues.
Picture a spider web, if you will. You touch the outer
strand of a spider web, the whole thing ripples.
And if you catch too many menhaden, that has a fairly
dramatic effect on the whole marine ecosystem, one of which is
striped bass don't have enough to eat, so they forage for other
species.
And in our case, the other species targeted is blue crab.
And then the blue crab population is beginning to crash, not
just because of the striped bass; there are many other factors
involved.
But there were other people that became involved in the
menhaden issue other than the commercial menhaden fishermen, so
it had a broad ripple. And I think that if the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission did anything that was sensitive and
sophisticated and well-done, it was to deal with that issue
with all the various groups.
Having been a little bit involved in that, I can say that
there was very little if any political clout used in that
issue, other than the basic scientific effort to try to deal
with it.
But we can follow up on that, Walter, and make sure that
North Carolina gets its fair share.
Ms. Short, just very briefly, because I think we just got
buzzed for a vote, you mentioned a number of projects. I think
10, 12, 17 projects or whatever, along the East Coast, dealing
with, to some extent, fishery habitat and restoration. And you
did say you had a particular habitat restoration project.
Could you tell me what that restoration project is or what
some of them are, and exactly what you do in a fisheries
restoration project?
Ms. Short. We have a number of fisheries types of
activities that contribute to restoration of anadromous fish,
both in terms of opening up passage through rivers, through the
removal of small obstructions, as well as water quality
issues--
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are removing small dams or levies or
things of this nature?
Ms. Short. They can be. I don't have information with me on
those specific projects, but I would be glad to respond in
writing with more specifics.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you? I would like to see the specifics
on each of those projects, especially along the East Coast, and
who else you work with, because, most likely, if you are going
into tidal estuaries or streams or rivers, then you must have
some cooperation with not only the state agencies, but local
communities.
I would be interested in seeing how that process works.
We have a number of places in my district where there are
impoundments or dams or things like that that are no large
areas of striped bass spawning, certainly with shad, white
perch. There is a whole range of species that could swim
upstream a lot further to expand their spawning areas. So that
would be very helpful.
The other question I had, and I guess anybody can answer
this, I suppose, the Striped Bass Act we all know has been a
resounding success. And we continue to reauthorize it and work
with it. And we are talking about reforming some of these acts.
Is it time to consider that or these other acts that deal
specifically with a particular fishery, and take a look at it
from an ecosystem approach, a multispecies approach? Because we
are talking about menhaden and striped bass and crabs,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, subaquatic vegetation, and many
other things, and it all deals with the same habitat for all of
these different species.
So if anybody would want to respond--Ms. Chasis?
Ms. Chasis. I think that is an excellent suggestion. That
is something that the National Research Council, in recent
reports that it has issued, has emphasized the need for,
ecosystem management plans for fisheries.
And I think the points you make are illustrative of why it
is important. The way fisheries are managed, to a large extent
now, are on a single-species basis. And stepping back and
looking at the broader ecosystem and the interactions and
making sure the management measures are consistent with
maintaining or restoring ecosystem health is extremely
important.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there some language or is it necessary to
put some language into, let's say the Striped Bass Act?
Ms. Chasis. I haven't reviewed that Act, so I would want to
go back and look at it. But it seems to me that is something
that would be important to do. And I am not aware that there is
language, for example, in the Atlantic Cooperative Fisheries
Act to do that. I would turn that over to Jack.
But I think it is certainly a very, very worthwhile
suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Dunnigan?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is a lot that is going on in this area right now. And
one of the things that we are finding is that there is a
tremendous gap between what we know and what we would need to
know, if we are seriously going to try to manage species, even
on a multispecies basis, much less moving toward ecosystem
management.
This Committee--Mr. Saxton--has supported some important
funding for a number of years now that has been looking at
interspecies dynamics, and that is important work that needs to
continue.
Last year, there was a major scientific conference on data
that was held. It is specifically looking at what are the data
needs for ecosystem management.
Our commission has now received a grant from the Chesapeake
Bay program of NOAA to do some more coordinating scientific
research. And we are about ready to issue the contract for
that.
So there are a lot of things that are going on. But one of
the things that we are going to have to do, if we are going to
be serious about ecosystem management, is to make a major
investment in the research that is going to be required to
support the management program that will look at these things.
It will be expensive.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And we will attempt to do that up
here.
Mr. Underwood, follow-up questions?
We have a vote. We will be back, hopefully in 15 to 20
minutes. So we will take a recess at this time.
Oh, you know something? Thanks for your testimony.
[Laughter.]
And this panel is dismissed, also.
[Laughter.]
[Recess.]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. [Presiding.] We are going to reconvene the
Subcommittee at this point to conduct the second part of the
hearing on an issue I think most people will agree is of great
importance specifically to New Jersey but also of some
importance in the national picture of management of our refuge
system and wilderness area generally.
Let me begin by introducing the panel, a panel of people
who I have come to know well from my years of work in this
area.
First, Mr. Daniel Ashe, Assistant Director of Refuge and
Wildlife at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Second, Mr. Bob McDowell, who does a great job for us back
in New Jersey as Director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife.
He will be here shortly.
Third, a great friend of mine, someone who has dedicated
himself to quality-of-life issues and environmental issues in
Ocean County, the Director of our Ocean County Freeholder
Board, Mr. John P. Kelly.
Thank you for coming all the way from New Jersey today,
Freeholder.
And Mr. Larry Savadove from Beach Haven.
We are very pleased that you are able to be with us this
morning, Larry.
Larry and I have had many experiences together, not the
least of which was to be in the middle of a demonstration when
somebody didn't like what I was trying to do with fish a year
or so ago. And we weathered that storm together.
And we are very pleased to have you here today. And we know
that there was some discomfort in you getting here, and we are
sorry about that. But you can be sure that we are pleased to
have you here and to hear what you have to offer today.
And also, Mr. Bob DeLeonard, the President of the New
Jersey Beach Buggy Association, a group of folks who are also
dedicated to conservation and the environment, and who have
done a great job over the years with a whole variety of issues,
including the stewardship of the area of land that we are here
to discuss today and the activities that take place on it.
I have a written statement that I would like to ask
unanimous consent be included in the record. And I would like
to just try and outline this issue, as I see it at least.
It involves an area which was designated as wilderness area
in the early 1970's. The are is known as the Holgate Unit and
is part of the former Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge,
which is now known under the name of the Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge, having been renamed after my predecessor,
Congressman Ed Forsythe, who served as the ranking member of
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
This issue is about access for fishermen, who have carried
on a historic use adjacent to and sometimes slightly within the
borders of the wilderness area known as Holgate.
I have placed a small map on the desk in front of each
member, which shows in pictorial form and map form the Holgate,
which is at the southern end of Long Beach Island, a strip of
land several hundred yards wide and 3 miles long.
The area is 250-some-odd acres. Its eastern border is the
area that is in question. The eastern border of the wilderness
area is known as the mean high-water line, mean high-tide line.
And the area to the east of that is owned by the State of New
Jersey.
The problem here is that over the last 30 years, the
township of Long Beach in Ocean County has issued an average of
500 to 600 permits, beginning in the year 1965.
Actually, in 1965, there were 480 permits issued. The
average, I am told, during the last 36 years, has been between
500 and 600 permits, which are issued to individuals who have
over-the-sand vehicles. And, in fact, last year, there were 716
issued.
Now, I say that because there was a question raised about
how historic this use is, and I just wanted to establish for
the record that the historic level of usage has been between
500 and 600 vehicles that have been permitted a year.
I think it is also important to point out that while that
is the specific issue, the effort of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to eliminate this historic use--pursuant to a CCP,
which has been developed, and we are awaiting its
implementation or an attempt to implement it.
I think it is very important to point out that the wildlife
refuge system in states like New Jersey is a very useful tool,
and it is very useful for the management of the wildlife refuge
and the people who live around it to be good neighbors. And
that neighborly relationship obviously has to work both ways.
It is important that the communities in which the refuge is
located are good, hospitable folks, who help the management
through volunteerism, through cooperation of various kinds,
sometimes even through donation of assets to help the refuge
out.
And it is important to the relationship that the refuge
management be good, neighborly folks as well, and make the
members of the community that surround it feel comfortable.
Now, this is especially important in the case of the
Forsythe refuge. Unlike most other refuges, the Forsythe refuge
is not a single piece of land. The Forsythe refuge begins, at
its southern most point, surrounding an area known as the
Mullica River estuary and south of the Mullica River estuary
for a few miles, some 20 miles north, with various little
pieces of land, which we wanted to make part of the refuge over
the years.
And for my part, I have advocated doing that. I thought it
was a great idea to add to the refuge.
As a matter of fact, I have a list of appropriations that I
advocated for, and in some cases got added, and in other cases
just supported the Fish and Wildlife Service for requests for
the money: beginning in 1990 and 1991, between those 2 years,
about $4 million; $4 million in 1992; 1993, almost $4.5
million; $4.5 million in 1994; and on up through 2002, when we
have requested an additional $3 million for the acquisition of
an area known as the Forked River wildlife farm.
Forked River game farm, right, Bob?
Mr. McDowell. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. That is the one.
And that is several hundred acres. We want to add that to
the refuge.
So this is a refuge which has developed from its core,
which used to be the Brigantine area, all the way up the
mainland and, in some cases, on Cedar Bonnet Island, on another
part of Long Beach Island.
So the point is that the refuge touches the lives of people
all up and down the mainland and, in some cases, on Long Beach
Island in Ocean County. It touches all of our lives. And,
therefore, it is especially important that we recognize that
this relationship of neighborliness has to take place.
And I am concerned that I hear quite often that that
relationship is beginning to fail. And, as a matter of fact, it
has a history of having problems over the last 17 years since I
have been a member of the House.
And I have worked diligently, in an understanding way, I
believe, trying to help both sides understand the other side
and be good neighbors. But recently, some things have started
to occur, one of which we are hear to discuss today, but I just
want to mention the other couple, because I think they
illustrate part of the problem here.
There have been a number of historic uses involving
hunting, involving crabbing, involving various interactions
with the refuge's neighbors with wildlife. One happens to be
duck hunting. And the attitude of the refuge management, in my
opinion, leaves something to be desired.
I know there are rules and laws that have to be followed,
and I know there are decisions that have to be made.
In one case, a duck hunter, who had a floating blind, which
was anchored in a legal position near the refuge, was told by
the refuge management that it was unwise for them to hunt there
because, if they shot a duck and it landed on the refuge, it
was illegal for them to walk on refuge to get the duck. And
likewise, it was illegal for them not to get the duck because
of another law.
And, therefore, if a duck landed on the refuge, after
having been killed by the hunter, he would be arrested one way
or the other.
I thought that was going a bit far, in terms of stretching
the attitude of good neighborliness.
More recently, just this week, I got a call in my district
office from a family whose kids over the last 4 or 5 years have
applied for a Federal permit to walk across the Forsythe marsh
to get to the water where they put minnow traps to get minnows
to take back to sell out of a tank in their garage.
Now, mom and dad, obviously, applied for the permits,
because the kids were too young. But this is 12-year-old boy
and an 8-year-old girl, who over the past 4 or 5 years have
carried out this activity and, during the course of the summer,
raise about $400. They don't really raise $400, because mom and
dad buy the traps and subsidize the operation.
But they thought it was a good activity for their kids to
be involved in. And so the kids, every morning or every
afternoon, whenever they go check the traps, go over, collect
the minnows, bring them back, put them in the tank in the
garage, and the neighbors come and buy the minnows to fish
with.
This year, for the first year, the management refused to
issue those permits, while others, who carry on the same type
of activity but don't sell the minnows, are able to walk across
the marsh.
I thought that was stretching the neighborliness concept
that we have tried so hard to develop.
But there is a bigger problem, and this is the one that we
are here to discuss today.
In 1965, when the Wilderness Act was passed, there was a
lot of discuss about a historic use--or there were many
assurances given, I should say, about a historic use that takes
place on this Holgate section of piece that we started to talk
about, which is just a small portion of the total 44,000 acres
in Forsythe, 250-some-odd acres.
There was a lot of support for having this area delineated
as wilderness area. Incidentally, it wasn't in the Department's
original proposal, but there were some 4,000 or 4,400 acres
that were part of the proposal to be delineated in Forsythe
wilderness area. This wasn't part of it.
But the community wanted it. They wanted it, because if you
look at this map, on the mainland, there is a road that comes
down to a point near the Holgate part of the refuge. And there
was talk about building a bridge, a causeway bridge, from that
road on the mainland to the tip of Long Beach Island, and
nobody wanted that to happen.
And so the Sierra Club, other environmental groups, and the
Beach Buggy Association advocated for this property to be
designated as wilderness area, with the understanding and
assurance that historic uses--i.e., beach buggy access or over-
the-sand vehicle access--would continue as a historic use.
And each year, when the fishermen went to purchase their
permits from the Long Beach Township office of permit issuance,
they were told, ``Here's your permit. Pay your fee.''
I don't know what the fee is. Maybe somebody knows.
Jack, do you know what the fee is? Whatever the fee is. $50
or whatever it is.
Mr. Kelly. Right.
Mr. McDowell. Correct.
Mr. DeLeonard. It is $50.
Mr. Saxton. ``Here is your permit. Have a happy season
fishing.''
And so, over and over again, our fishermen were told that
this would continue to be a permitted use.
Specifically, the regulations developed, pursuant to the
Wilderness Act, which I understand the most recent
administration no longer adheres to, but there is a regulation,
which I will read, which says:
The director may permit, subject to such restrictions as he
deems desirable, the landing of aircraft and the use of
motorized equipment at places within the wilderness where such
uses were established prior to the date the wilderness was
designated by the Act of Congress as a unit of the national
wilderness preservation system.
So, there is a regulation in place which tells the
fishermen that it is Federal policy that we will, in the case
of preexisting uses or historic uses, that they may continue.
And more specifically, when a previous refuge manager
decided that it would be in the best interest of some wildlife
in this unit to eliminate beach buggies or over-the-sand
vehicles in 1991, specifically, we sat down to try to solve the
problem, which involved piping plovers, which nest and fledge
from April 15 until about Labor Day.
We sat down with the Fish and Wildlife Service and worked
out an arrangement where over-the-sand vehicles would not be
permitted during that fledging season but would be permitted
during the rest of the year. And that agreement, which is
signed by David Beall, who was then the refuge manager; Donald
Fricke, who was then the associate manager of refuges north;
Donald Young, assistant regional director, refuges and
wildlife; and the regional director; all signed this agreement
in July and on August 2, 1990.
It says, during the September 1 through the March 31
period, over-the-sand vehicles may utilize the tidelands, which
are hard-packed sands below the mean high-water line. Refuge
special unit permit obtained from the refuge manager will be
required for over-the-sand vehicle use. Over-the-sand vehicles
may enter and travel the tidelands only when the tide is out
and the tidelands are exposed. To minimize the distance of
travel on the loose sand or dry sand above the mean high-water
line, which is the refuge boundary, over-the-sand vehicles
shall be parked within 30 feet of the water edge at high tide
and generally parked perpendicular to the water edge.
So in 1990, I thought the problem was solved, and the
fishermen were told again that it is our Federal policy that
you be permitted to fish in this area.
Most recently, I have worked with Dan Ashe. And I want to
thank him for his cooperation through this process. We met in
my office on two or three occasions with the previous director,
Jamie Clark.
And on each occasion, Ms. Clark and Mr. Ashe came to my
office, listened to this story, probably a different version of
it than I just told, and left my office saying, ``This is a
problem, but we will go back and see if we can figure out a way
to help you,'' which I always took, and I think they will
agree, meant permit this historic use to continue.
I will just conclude by saying that no one, to my
knowledge, has indicated that under the use agreement that was
developed and signed in 1990, that any significant
environmental degradation has occurred. Markers are put up. The
fishermen, by and large, stay where they are supposed to be on
the beaches. The only time they get up on the wilderness area
is when the tide comes in and they have a choice between
getting up on the wilderness area or having their vehicle
underwater.
And so, that was a good, neighborly effort that occurred
through negotiations involving my office, permit holders, and
the division of fish and wildlife.
So now I understand that the division of fish and wildlife
has taken the position that there is no latitude, there is no
flexibility in the Federal law--with which I vehemently
disagree. And I think there is case law currently, which has
been pointed out to me, currently on the books, which
substantiates the point that the Department does have the
necessary flexibility.
And so I guess I am here--and I promised myself that I
wouldn't act frustrated this morning. I promised myself that I
would sit here and have this conversation with you all in a
gentleman-like way, and I am going to do that. But I am
frustrated, I must say, after all these years--the fishermen
were told beginning in 1960, 1973, that there would not be the
problem that we are here to discuss today.
They were told every year along the way. They were told in
1990. They were told since 1990. There is a written agreement
spelling out the permission for this historic use. And I am
frustrated.
But that having been said, let me stop now. I have taken
much longer than my time, but I hope my colleague will
understand.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
I would like to thank those who have come today to discuss very
important issues concerning the Holgate Peninsula in the Brigantine
Wilderness Area located in the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge (formerly known as the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge).
Of particular concern to me today is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's
proposal in their Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment to eliminate access of motor vehicles and surf
fishermen to the Holgate Peninsula and State Riparian lands located
below the mean high tide.
As many of you know, The Wilderness Act of 1964 directed the
Secretary of Interior to review roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more
and report to the President as to the suitability of public lands for
wilderness designation. The Department of Interior recommended 4,250
acres of the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge be preserved as
wilderness. However, Holgate Peninsula was not included in this
recommendation. Legislation originally introduced by Congressman Edwin
B. Forsythe and Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey designated 4,250
acres as recommended by the Department of Interior. In hearings held on
the legislation, Mr. E. U. Curtis Bohlen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Department of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks testified
that:
``The Administration did not consider Holgate Peninsula
suitable to be recommended as wilderness. On the Holgate
Peninsula, Federal ownership includes only 256 acres and
extends only to mean high tide with the State of New Jersey
owning riparian rights. Thousands of people use the riparian
lands for boating, fishing and beach buggy use, which
eliminates any opportunity for solitude or wilderness type
recreation on this part of the refuge.''
Senator Case later modified his bill to include 16,800 acres which
was the entire wildlife refuge at that time. The compromise bill which
eventually passed both the House and Senate (P.L. 93-632), designated
6,603 acres as wilderness which did include the Holgate Peninsula. The
Holgate Peninsula became part of the final legislation despite that it
was not the subject of a local hearing, part of an Environmental Impact
Statement or recommended by the Administration.
And when Holgate was included by Senator Case, the Senator as well
as surf fishermen were assured there would be no loss in public access.
And in fact, surf fishermen continued to drive their beach buggies on
state riparian lands and above the mean high tide after the wilderness
designation to this present day.
In addition, a representative of the New Jersey Sierra Club, the
New York and New Jersey Chapters of the Appalachian Mountain Club and
Friends of the Earth testified at the hearing in 1974 that:
``It is our belief that wilderness is a resource which can be
enjoyed by large numbers of people so long as it is not
overused. The excellent management policies of the wildlife
refuge, combined with those of Long Beach Township have
successfully protected this extremely fragile area from
excessive damage. They require a seasonal permit for all beach
buggies which go on the refuge. Recent reports actually show
that tracking of heavy vehicles such as beach buggies can be
beneficial during the winter months. They break the heavy salt
crust which seem to form during the winter, and this permits
the sand to blow freely once more, and to reform the sand
dunes.''
The representative also stated ``beach buggies keep primarily to
the wet sand area, going no further than approximately 25 feet above
high tide.'' Clearly, the statement emphasizes the compatibility of the
beach buggy use with the wilderness designation in terms of the local
environmental concerns.
It is also my belief that the surf fishermen themselves and the
surrounding community have worked diligently to protect the Holgate
Peninsula as you will hear from the President of the Beach Buggy
Association. Holgate has been accessed by beach buggies and surf
fishermen since before the wildlife refuge or wilderness area existed
there. They have built at least 4,000 feet of snow fence to protect the
sand dunes and started a grass planting program. They have been good at
keeping vehicle violations to a minimum and supporting the refuge staff
when penalizing violators.
In 1990, I personally helped to negotiate a written agreement
called ``Public Use Management for Holgate Unit'' between the surf
fishermen and FWS to keep open access to Holgate from September to
April of each year to protect the nesting piping plovers. In the
written agreement, FWS committed to allowing surf fishermen to use the
site, driving out on state riparian lands, then at high tide, they
could back up their vehicles and park above the mean high tide in a 30
foot area. The written agreement states:
``During the September 1 through March 31 period, over-the-sand
vehicles (OSVs) may utilize the tidelands which are the hard
packed sands below the mean high water line. To minimize the
distance of travel on the loose or dry sand above mean high
water line the over-the-sand vehicle shall be parked within 30
feet of the water edge at high tide and generally park
perpendicular to the water edge.''
This written agreement is signed by the Refuge Manager, Associate
Manager- Refuges North, Assistant Regional Director-Refuges and
Wildlife, and the Regional Director. This written agreement established
clear public use management practices for balancing the wilderness
needs and prior historical use by fishermen.
Fishermen accepted partial closure of Holgate to protect endangered
piping plovers by agreeing not to take vehicles onto the beach during
the fledgling season. Fishermen gave up fishing during nearly all the
spring and summer months. Clearly, fishermen have demonstrated
willingness to protect the piping plover, and now they are being forced
out.
I work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in many areas for
the betterment of our natural resources. In this instance, however, I
am concerned that the rights of citizens to enjoy natural resources are
being trampled. FWS has taken a position in direct contradiction to
what they have agreed to in the past and what they have practiced in
the past. They have acted unilaterally to restrict access to New Jersey
state owned lands and deny historical compatible uses that were assured
to be maintained. A deal is a deal.
I am left with little choice but to offer legislation (H.R. 896)
that would provide a transition zone, as described in the 1990 written
agreement, to allow beach buggies to continue to access Holgate
Peninsula as they have for the last 80 years.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Underwood, would like to make a statement?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have already indicated my own statement on this
particular piece of legislation. But I wanted to ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record a statement by the Wilderness
Society and the Sierra Club.
Mr. Saxton. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waltman follows:]
Statement of James R. Waltman, Director, Refuges and Wildlife Program,
The Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society appreciates this opportunity to provide
written testimony for the Subcommittee's hearing on H.R. 896. The
Wilderness Society is a non-profit organization with 200,000 members
and is devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife and protecting a
nationwide network of wildlands. Founded in 1935, the Society has a
long-standing commitment to the sound management and well being of the
National Wildlife Refuge System and has been instrumental in the
establishment and protection of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
The Wilderness Society opposes H.R. 896, a bill that would modify
the boundaries of the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey in order
to allow off road vehicle travel on the Holgate Beach unit of the area.
We believe that this legislation would undermine protection of the
Holgate Wilderness, harm migratory birds and other wildlife, damage the
refuge's sensitive beach ecology, conflict with efforts to recover
endangered species, and foreclose a rare opportunity for wilderness
recreation. We also fear that the bill could establish a dangerous
precedent for wilderness management. We urge the Subcommittee to oppose
this legislation.
As a native of New Jersey, I know all too well how few wild places
remain in the Garden State to experience solitude and wildlife in their
natural habitat. Less than two percent of the public land in the state
is protected as Wilderness. New Jersey's beaches are a source of
enjoyment, economic vitality, and pride for the state. Unfortunately,
ocean front houses, condominiums, hotels, roads, or other developments
mark virtually all of New Jersey's beaches. In addition, more than
thirty beaches in the state allow beach buggies and other off-road
vehicles to drive along the shoreline. By our estimates, approximately
70 percent of the state's beaches allow off-road vehicle travel by
anglers and others. On Long Beach Island alone, where Holgate Beach is
located, nearly the entire 18 mile stretch of beach outside of the
refuge is open to vehicles. All-too-rare is the opportunity for
visitors to birdwatch, fish, beachwalk, and relax on a wild,
undeveloped beach, free from the sounds, smells, and harassment of off-
road vehicles. The Holgate seashore on the Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge should provide visitors just such an experience.
The Holgate Beach unit of the refuge, on Long Beach Island, was set
aside to host thousands of shorebirds that migrate and feed along the
coast of New Jersey. The area is so critical that from April through
August the beach is completely reserved to allow piping plovers, a
Federally threatened species, time to nest and migrate. Moreover, this
area remains a prime area for migrating shorebirds through the fall
months. Close to 300 bird species have been sighted there, including
Atlantic brant, American black duck, and brown pelican. Wilderness
designation of the area has, at least in theory, provided an additional
layer of protection for the wildlife of the area and provided a
recreational experience that is so rare elsewhere in the state of New
Jersey.
Unfortunately, illegal beach buggies and other off-road vehicles
are violating Holgate beach's Wilderness status. We are concerned that
this activity may be having several negative ecological effects in
addition to undermining the area's wilderness characteristics and
opportunities for wilderness recreation of the area.
Migratory Birds. Off road vehicles on the Holgate Beach are most
likely harassing migrating birds during their critical migration
seasons. While the beach at Holgate is closed between May and August,
during the nesting season of piping plovers, many shorebirds migrate
through the area during the early spring and fall months. Driving of
off-road vehicles on the beach during this period can disturb birds
during critical feeding and resting periods.
Endangered species. While the Holgate Beach is closed during the
nesting season of piping plovers, vehicle travel during the rest of the
year degrades this nesting habitat. Vehicle travel reduces the amount
of wrack on the beach that is an important foraging substrate. In
addition, a of migrating piping plovers use the beach after the
breeding season.
Vehicle travel on the Holgate Beach is also impacting recovery
efforts for the threatened Northeastern beach tiger beetle and the
threatened seabeach amaranth. Holgate has been identified as an ideal
sight for reintroduction and recovery of these species if vehicle
travel were to be discontinued. Introductions of both species are
thought to be doomed so long as vehicle travel is allowed to continue
on the beach. The amaranth is known to be highly sensitive to vehicle
travel, its stems easily broken. The beetle also can not withstand off-
road vehicle travel as its larval stage is found in the intertidal
zone. National wildlife refuges, particularly refuge wilderness areas,
provide some of the best opportunities for endangered species recovery.
It is very troubling that recreation vehicle travel is impeding
endangered species recovery action on a refuge wilderness area.
Beach ecology. Off road vehicles are known to disturb dune
formation, a central component of barrier island ecology, by limiting
vegetation growth. Vehicle travel also can destabilize beach structure
by breaking the salt crust and increasing sand movement and erosion. I
have personally walked the Holgate Beach and witnessed beach buggy
tracks near and even above the dune line during periods of high tide.
Beach Invertebrates. Dr. Stephen Leatherman of the University of
Maryland has identified significant negative impacts of vehicle travel
on ghost crabs, a species that he has called an excellent indicator
species for beach invertebrates. On Assateague Island, Virginia, an
average of 10 crabs were found on wild beach plots, only one crab was
found on plots with ``light ORV use'' and only 0.3 crabs were found per
plot with ``heavy ORV use.''
For all of the above reasons, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has proposed enforcement actions to stop illegal vehicle travel within
the Brigantine Wilderness. The agency has also proposed a ferry system,
which could transport individuals who wish to access the southern tip
of Holgate without walking. The Service has proposed these actions as
part of one of the very first Comprehensive Conservation Plans drafted
after passage of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act that the Subcommittee invested considerable effort on developing.
We support the Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts to resolve the
conflict with off-road vehicle travel on the beach and are troubled
that Congress would contemplate taking action to overturn them.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not proposed banning fishing,
hiking, birding, or other pedestrian powered recreational activities
within the Holgate Beach. It has merely taken long-overdue action to
enforce the Wilderness Act and to protect the wilderness, wildlife, and
wildland characteristics of the refuge.
More than 30 of New Jersey's beaches are currently open to off-road
vehicle travel for at least part of the year and is used by anglers. By
our estimation, approximately 70 percent of the Atlantic coastline in
the state is open to this activity. On Long Beach Island alone, where
Holgate Beach is located, nearly the entire 18 mile stretch of beach
outside of the refuge is open to vehicles. Certainly we should be able
to protect the two and a half miles of beach within the Brigantine
Wilderness Area.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Semcer follows:]
Statement of Bart Semcer, Associate Washington Representative, The
Sierra Club
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement into the
hearing record and discuss the value of maintaining the legal
prohibition on the use of motor vehicles on Federal Wilderness lands on
the Holgate Peninsula of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge
in New Jersey.
The Sierra Club is North America's oldest and largest grassroots
conservation organization. The Club exists to explore, enjoy, and
protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the
responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; and to educate
and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural
and human environment.
There are over 700,000 Sierra Club members in the 50 U.S. states
and all Canadian territories and provinces. Approximately 21,000 of our
members reside in New Jersey. Our members include people from all walks
of life who enjoy experiencing the natural world and who value its
conservation. One-fifth of our members identify themselves as
sportsmen, a group that appreciates the hunting and fishing
opportunities found on our national wildlife refuges and in our
nation's Wilderness Areas. All of our members have a stake in the
outcome of the management of the Holgate Peninsula because it is public
land of rare quality that is of immense value to migratory and
imperiled species of global importance. For reasons we identify below
we are opposed to H.R. 896 and urge this committee not to continue
efforts aimed at its passage.
The Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness is a single beach,
encompassing approximately 2.5 miles. It is the only area of Wilderness
beach in New Jersey. In contrast, there are over two dozen other
beaches in the state where the use of off-road vehicles are allowed, 18
miles of beach alone just to the north of Holgate. In light of this,
conserving Holgate as a Wilderness, and enforcing the prohibition
against the use of motorized vehicles there for the benefit of hikers,
birdwatchers, beachwalkers, and other average citizens who would like
to enjoy New Jersey's only opportunity to experience a coastal
Wilderness is more than a just compromise. It is an imperative.
In order to appreciate the ecological and recreational value of the
Holgate Peninsula as a motor-free Wilderness Area one needs to look at
it in the larger contexts of its place as part of the Atlantic
coastline, the National Wilderness Preservation System, and New
Jersey's public land base.
The Atlantic Coast of the United States is a region of severe
ecological distress. Coastal areas of the United States have and
continue to undergo an unprecedented growth in human population. In
1960, 80 million people lived within U.S. coastal counties (Bush et al.
1996). Today the number has grown to over 141 million with nearly
14,000 new housing units being built in coastal counties every week,
even though these counties account for only 17% of the U.S. landmass
(National Research Council 2000). In the area surrounding the
Brigantine Wilderness and Holgate Peninsula it is projected that the
human population will increase to nearly 3.5 million in 2020, a rise of
31% from 1990 population levels (New Jersey Office of State Planning
1999). In addition, beach areas are popular tourist destinations: 40
percent of Americans list beaches as their preferred site for vacations
(National Research Council 1995), and 100 million people visit the
coast every year (National Research Council 2000).
This increase in human population and visitation has been
accompanied by an increase in the alteration of native coastal
ecosystems. Between 1945 and 1975, development on Atlantic and Gulf
Coast barrier islands, one of which the Holgate is a part, increased
more than 300% (Slater and Odem 1993). This ``occurred largely (over
5,000 hectares) at the expense of wetland, grassland, salt flat, and
dune areas although at least 6000 ha of forest were lost. In all these
cases the alteration was irreversible since it consisted of activities
such as clearing, bulldozing, and dredge and fill operations.'' As
Lubchenco et al (1995) observe in their ecosystem analysis of coastal
systems for the United Nation's Global Biodiversity Assessment ``[m]any
areas are already severely degraded. Moreover, the rates, spatial
extent and types of perturbations are increasing alarmingly.''
Not surprisingly, numerous species that utilize Atlantic coastal
habitats have been adversely affected by these activities. The walrus
has been extirpated from the New England coast. Harbor seals, Harp
seals, Gray seals and Hooded seals have been reduced in number and
extirpated from some of their historic range on the Atlantic coast
entirely.
Since the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, species
found on the Atlantic coast of the United States that are listed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service include: Roseate tern; Piping plover;
Leatherback sea turtle; Hawksbill sea turtle; Kemp's ridley sea turtle;
Green sea turtle; Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle; Northeastern beach
tiger beetle; Bald eagle and Seabeach amaranth. (50 CFR 17.11, 17.21.)
On the Jersey Coast Refuges themselves - of which Holgate and the
rest of the Brigantine Wilderness are a part - the New Jersey Division
of Fish and Wildlife lists an additional 33 species as either
Threatened or Endangered under state law, including: Great blue heron;
Little blue heron; Yellow-crowned night heron; Cooper's hawk; Red
shouldered hawk; Northern harrier; Osprey; Black rail; Least tern;
Short-eared owl; Barred owl; Red-headed woodpecker; Cliff swallow;
Sedge wren; Grasshopper sparrow; Savannah sparrow; Vesper sparrow ;
Coast flatsedge; Britton's spikerush; Twisted spikerush; Thread-leaved
beaked rush; Grass-like beaked rush; Rare-flowering beaked rush;
Leathery rush; Bog asphodel; Snowy orchid; Lace-lip ladies-tresses;
Wrinkled jointgrass; Bristling witchgrass; Short-leaved skeleton grass;
and, Richard's yellow-eyed grass.
As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted in the recovery plan
for the Seabeach amaranth (FWS 1996a:10), this species shares its
habitat with a number of the state and Federally listed species
identified above, and these species, ``unlike many endangered species,
are not narrow endemics. Such pervasive declines in a cluster of wide-
ranging species occupying the same habitat is an obvious indication of
an entire ecosystem in very serious trouble.''
While some representative areas of this ecosystem, such as the
Holgate Peninsula, have been protected against development, most amount
to only semi-protected environments at best. Degradation of their
living components continues and efforts to recover ecological integrity
are impaired, due in part to ongoing recreational activities,
particularly those utilizing motorized vehicles.
The Piping plover, a Federally listed Threatened species and an
indicator of a healthy beach ecosystem, is documented to occur on the
Holgate Peninsula in both the recovery plan for the species (USFWS
1996b) and the revised draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the
Jersey Coast Refuges. The species utilizes the Peninsula for breeding,
feeding, and sheltering from the early spring into autumn.
From April 1 to August 31 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
maintains a complete closure of the Holgate Peninsula, prohibiting
pedestrian and vehicular access, as well as boat landings, in order to
protect nesting plovers by preventing the impairment of their habitat,
harassment of individuals and disruptions of normal behavioral patterns
including feeding and sheltering.
The Piping plover recovery plan also notes that there are ``large
numbers'' of the species at Holgate during the post-breeding season.
These individuals are vulnerable to and likely experience
``harassment'', as defined in 50 CFR 17.3, from motor vehicles via
flushing and the crushing of wrack into the sand, making it unavailable
as cover or for foraging.
The Piping plover revised recovery plan makes clear the threat that
motor vehicles pose to the species:
``Vehicles also significantly degrade piping plover habitat or
disrupt normal behavior patterns. They may harm or harass
plovers by crushing wrack into the sand and making it
unavailable as cover or a foraging substrate, by creating ruts
that can trap or impede movements of chicks, and by preventing
plovers from using habitat that is otherwise suitable. Vehicles
that drive too close to the toe of a dune may destroy `open
vegetation' that may also furnish important piping plover
habitat.''
When Piping plovers return to the Holgate Peninsula in the spring
to nest they are forced to do so in an area of impaired habitat. This
impairment is the result of 8 months of steady use of the beach by
motor vehicles that decreases the amount of wrack available to the
species for cover and foraging. Piping plovers at Holgate are forced to
contend with this decrease at a time in their life cycle when a
sufficient amount of habitat for cover and foraging is necessary to
their migratory and reproductive success.
Because motor vehicle use on the Holgate Peninsula prior to the
Piping plover nesting season results in the significant absence of an
important habitat element when the species arrives to use the beach,
beach buggy use is responsible for starting the species off at a
disadvantage each and every nesting season. We have argued in the
public record on the Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
the Jersey Coast Refuges that this is a violation of 50 CFR 17.3,
prohibiting the ``harm'' and ``harassment'' of a species due to the
impairment and disruption of essential behavioral patterns under the
Endangered Species Act. This violation could be remedied in part by
enforcing the Wilderness Act's prohibition of motorized use of the
Federal lands of the Holgate Peninsula and we support the efforts of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to that end.
Additional species necessary for Holgate's ecological integrity
whose recovery is negatively impacted by motorized use of the area are
Northeastern beach tiger beetle and Seabeach amaranth.
Like the Piping plover, the Northeastern beach tiger beetle is an
indicator of a healthy beach environment. The species is ecologically
important as the dominant invertebrate predator in those habitat areas
where it occurs (USFWS 1993). Predation is a key process in the natural
maintenance of biodiversity (Terborgh et al. 1999).
The Northeastern beach tiger beetle was once described as occurring
in ``great swarms'' on New Jersey's beaches (Leng 1902 in USFWS 1993).
Today the species is extirpated from much of its historic range,
including that in New Jersey, save for a small, reintroduced population
at the Gateway National Recreation Area. One of the factors identified
in the extirpation of the species across the majority of its historic
range is increased vehicular traffic on Atlantic coast beaches
(Stamatov 1972 in USFWS 1993).
As the Fish and Wildlife Service noted in its recovery plan for the
species:
``Vehicles may physically compact the beach substrate and/or
disrupt thermal and moisture microhabitat gradients that are
important for the larvae (Schultz 1988). The best evidence of
beach vehicle impacts to (the species) comes from a survey of
Assateague Island, Maryland (Knisley and Hill 1992). Adults and
larvae of (the species) were absent from a 16-km (10-mi)
section of beach that receives heavy ORV use, but present on
either side of the ORV zone, both on the north end of the
island and to the south in the Virginia section. It is also
significant that (the species) was common on the northern
portion of the ORV zone in 1973, but had disappeared by the
summer of 1976, after ORV use became heavy (J. Glaser, Maryland
Geological Survey, pers. Comm.).''
``Surveys of (the species) have also indicated an overall
pattern of absence from beaches with moderate to heavy ORV use.
The Martha's Vineyard site, one of two sites on the Atlantic
Coast where the species has survived (Martha's Vineyward) is
very inaccessible and has been well protected from visitor use
and vehicle use for many years (T. Simmons, The Nature
Conservancy, pers. comm). The newly discovered site in
Westport, Massachusetts is not used by ORVs, although it
receives heavy pedestrian use (S. von Oettingen, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, pers. comm.).''
In order to recover healthy populations of the Northeastern beach
tiger beetle so that it can be removed from the Federal Threatened
species list, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sought to re-
establish populations of the species in places where it has been
extirpated. The Holgate Peninsula has been identified as a potential
reintroduction site for the species based on the habitat conditions
present there. To date however the Service has refrained from
initiating a reintroduction program there because of concerns that
continued motorized use of Holgate would doom it to failure. The
Service has stated that Holgate would be an ``excellent''
reintroduction site if motorized use of the area were ended.
Maintenance and enforcement of the Wilderness Act's prohibitions on
motorized use of the Federal lands at Holgate would help to make
reintroduction of a key ecological component of the peninsula more
feasible, thereby helping to move the species itself one step closer to
removal from the Threatened species list and leading to a healthier
overall beach environment.
The Seabeach amaranth is a sand-binding species of plant, listed as
Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Historically ranging from
North Carolina to Massachusetts, the species has been extirpated from 6
of the states within its former range, including until very recently,
New Jersey. In the past year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
been investigating the Holgate Peninsula for returned occurrences of
the species, an action that indicates the beach is one of the few
remaining areas in the state offering the physical habitat necessary
for the species to exist.
To date, the Service has not documented a return of Seabeach
amaranth to the Holgate Peninsula. Indeed, despite the presence of the
necessary physical components for the species to re-establish itself at
Holgate, the continued presence of motorized vehicles there is likely a
contributing factor to the impairment of Sebeach amaranth recovery in
the area. As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) points out in
its recovery plan for the species:
``While seabeach amaranth populations are somewhat tolerant of
ORV use from December until May, the brittle, fleshy stems are
easily broken, and growing plants (May to December) do not
generally survive a single pass by a truck tire. Thus, even
minor beach traffic directly across the plants during the
growing season is detrimental, causing mortality and reduced
seed production.''
The recovery plan also notes that ``Seabeach amaranth has a
particularly close tie with piping plovers, very frequently occupying
the same sites. Habitat management for one benefits the other, and no
action taken to manage for one has harmed the other.'' The benefits
provided to Piping plover via the existing seasonal restrictions of
motorized vehicles are well recognized. We have also argued that
extending the seasonal restrictions on motorized vehicles at Holgate
would carry additional conservation and recovery benefits for the
species. This extension would also benefit the reestablishment and
recovery of the Seabeach amaranth at Holgate as it would keep motorized
vehicles off of the beach during the growing season months when the
species is vulnerable to ORV use.
Congress has clearly stated its desire and intent to recover
species listed as Threatened and Endangered under the Endangered
Species Act, and to remove them from the lists of threatened and
endangered species. It has also clearly stated that in order to do this
the ecosystems on which those species depend must be conserved.
Likewise, the National Academy of Sciences (1995b) has informed
Congress of the indispensability of habitat protection to endangered
species conservation and recovery. The Holgate Peninsula is clearly one
such ecosystem whose conservation could be achieved, where species
recovery opportunities could be enhanced by maintaining and enforcing
existing Wilderness Act protections for the area with regard to motor
vehicles. Enactment of H.R. 896 however will clearly contribute to the
opposite outcome.
Conservation of ecosystems is not exclusively a tenant of the
Endangered Species Act but also the subject of a growing body of
scientific literature dealing with the design of nature reserve
systems. One point that is stressed is the need for ecosystem
representation within nature reserve systems. Indeed, ``a central goal
of conservation is representing a broad spectrum of natural communities
in a network of protected areas. Representation is an example of an
ecosystem approach to conservation'' and is often touted as being more
efficient than single-species based conservation.'' (Noss and
Cooperrider 1994).
As pointed out above, Atlantic coast barrier island ecosystems in
their native state, or a close approximation thereof, have become
increasingly rare as a result of human population growth and the
accompanying alteration of the landscape of the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Of those areas that remain essentially unmolested less than 20 have
received partial protection as conservation reserves. Only 4 are a part
of our national system of Wilderness Areas, enjoying the strongest land
conservation measures available to them. One of these areas is the
Holgate Peninsula. The Holgate Peninsula is one of only two such
protected barrier islands in the New York Bight. It is also the only
one along the New Jersey coast, a region of global ecological
importance.
Ecosystem conservation is one of the principal benefits of the
Wilderness system and Wilderness Areas are increasingly important
because of the ecological value they hold.
Because undeveloped areas of barrier island are so rare on the
landscape, and because they are even more rare within the national
Wilderness conservation system, removing Wilderness designation or the
full protection of the Wilderness Act from the Holgate Peninsula would
be decisions that ignore the best available scientific information with
regard to land conservation. In recent years Congress has increasingly
stated its desire to see our land management agencies base their land
use decisions on the best available scientific information. We would
like to see Congress hold itself to the same standard by recognizing
the necessity and value of including the Holgate area in our nation's
system of Wilderness and rejecting H.R. 896.
As part of New Jersey's public conservation land base, undeveloped
barrier island ecosystems are even more rare and protection of them as
Wilderness is exclusive to Holgate. New Jersey has approximately
701,593 acres of public wildlands including: State forests and parks;
wildlife management areas; national recreation areas; and, national
wildlife refuges. Of these, 140,382 acres are Federally administered as
national recreation area or national wildlife refuge. Federally
protected Wilderness in New Jersey is limited to 10,341 acres. The
3,660 acre Great Swamp Wilderness Area on the Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge; and, the 6,681 acre Brigantine Wilderness on the Edwin
B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. In all, Wilderness accounts for
only 1.4% of New Jersey's overall public land base, and only 7.3% of
the Federal lands in the state. It can easily be said that New Jersey
is a very Wilderness poor state, making what Wilderness Area's do exist
that much more valuable for conserving both the ecological and non-
motorized recreation resource.
The Holgate peninsula is a last bastion of undeveloped land in the
most densely populated and heavily urbanized state in the nation. As
stated at the beginning, The Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness
is a single beach, encompassing approximately 2.5 miles. It is the only
area of Wilderness beach in New Jersey whereas there are over two dozen
other beaches in the state where the use of off-road vehicles are
allowed, 18 miles of beach alone just to the north of Holgate. The
Peninsula is a rare ecological community and offers some of the last
habitat available for dwindling populations of our natural heritage. It
is exactly the sort of place that Congress sought to conserve when it
passed the Wilderness Act of 1964 ``in order to assure that an
increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing
mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United
States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for
preservation and protection in their natural condition.'' This sub-
committee and all of Congress should reject H.R. 896. It should support
the ongoing efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce
the law and end illegal motorized use of the Wilderness lands at
Holgate so that its special values can be conserved, for our families
and for our future.
REFERENCES
Bellis, V.J. 1995. Ecology of Maritime Forests of the Southern Atlantic
Coast: A Community Profile. National Biological Service,
Washington, D.C.
Bush, D. M., O.H. Pilkey, Jr. and W.J. Neal. 1996. Living by the Rules
of the Sea. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina
Code of Federal Regulations, 50 C.F.R. 17.11, 17.21 (1999)
J. Lubchenco, G.W. Allison, S.A. Navarrete, B.A. Menge, J.C. Castilla,
O. Defeo, C. Folke, O. Hussakin, T. Norton, A.M. Wood. 1995.
Coastal Systems. In V.H. Heywood, Global Biodiversity
Assessment. Published for the United Nations environment
programme by the Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England.
National Research Council, Ocean Studies Board and Water Science and
Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and
Resources. 2000. Clean coastal waters: understanding and
reducing the effects of nutrient pollution. National Academy
Press, Washington D.C.
National Research Council, Committee on Beach Nourishment and
Protection, Marine Board and Commission on Engineering and
Technical Systems. 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection.
National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
National Research Council, Committee on Scientific issues in the
Endangered Species Act, Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences. 1995. Science and the
Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
New Jersey Office of State Planning 1999. The New Jersey State
Development and Redevelopment Plan: Interim Plan. Appendix A.
Selected Population, Employment and Household Projections.
Trenton, New Jersey.
Noss, R. and Cooperrider, A.Y. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting
and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Slater, R. and W. Odum. 1993. Maritime Communities. In Martin, W.H.,
S.G. Boyce and A.C. Echternacht (eds), Biodiversity of
Southeastern United States Lowland Terrestrial Communities.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York
Terborgh et al. 1999. The Role of Top Carnivores in Regulating
Terrestrial Ecosystems. In Soule, M.E. and Terborgh, J. (eds),
Confidential Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional
Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. Recovery Plan for Northeastern
Beach Tiger Beetle (Cincindela dorsalis dorsalis Say). Hadley,
Massachusetts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996a. Recovery Plan for Seabeach
Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). Atlanta, Georgia
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b. Piping plover (Charadrius
melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan.
Hadley, Massachusetts.
______
Mr. Saxton. I would also like to ask unanimous consent that
Mr. Gilchrest's statement be placed in the record; the
testimony of Mayor James Mancini, the mayor of Long Beach
Township, New Jersey; and I guess that is it--the testimony of
the Alliance for a Living Ocean. I am sorry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mancini follows:]
Statement of James J. Mancini, Ocean County Freeholder and Mayor, Long
Beach Township, New Jersey
Good Morning. I am James Mancini, an Ocean County Freeholder for
the past 19 years and Mayor of Long Beach Township since 1964. I am
here today to speak in favor of H.R. 896, a bill introduced by
Congressman Saxton that would redefine the boundary of the Holgate Unit
of the Edwin B. Forsythe Wildlife Management Area. This new boundary
would provide an access corridor along the waterline to allow surf
fishermen in motor vehicles to continue traditional recreational surf
fishing along the Holgate beachfront. I want to stress that this is a
traditional recreational activity on Long Beach Island, long predating
the establishment of the Edwin B. Forsythe Wildlife Refuge, or even my
37 years as Mayor. Fishermen have been driving vehicles along the beach
to get to where the fish are as long as there have been motor vehicles
that could make the trip through the sand.
Since the establishment of the Holgate Unit there has been an
ongoing debate between the public and officials representing the
recreational fishing community and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concerning motor vehicles on the beach. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is charged with protecting wildlife within the National
Wildlife Refuge System. This is their primary goal. Accordingly, public
access to Refuge property is extremely limited by the Service in an
effort to provide a habitat where wildlife can thrive unimpeded by
humans. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service views any access to
the Holgate Unit by motor vehicles as an encroachment on the habitat of
the Piping Plover, there is a direct conflict between the primary goal
of the Wildlife Refuge System and the recreational fishing community
who have fished along the beach at Holgate for generations. This is a
conflict that I do not believe will be resolved as long as the
beachfront is considered part of the Wildlife Refuge System.
In 1990, an agreement was reached between the recreational fishing
community and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to close the Holgate
Unit to motor vehicles during the Piping Plover breeding season. Being
sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts at heart, the fishermen agreed to
this seasonal closure which runs from April to August. Now, in 2001 the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to break this agreement and
is again trying to bar motor vehicles from Holgate year round. Although
it is exasperating to have to deal with this issue again, we should not
be surprised. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is simply working to
achieve their primary goals concerning the National Wildlife Refuge
System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should not be surprised
at the wave of public opposition to their proposal. From our view, we
that seek to preserve the public's access to public lands settled this
matter in 1990. We compromised then, and there is no room to compromise
now.
Over the years, the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders has
adopted a number of resolutions opposing the closure of the Holgate
Unit to motor vehicles on a year round basis. Most recently, comments
were sent to the Department of the Interior by both Freeholder Director
John P. Kelly and myself, urging the Department to stop further
consideration of any Refuge Plan that includes a year round vehicle ban
on Holgate. Attached to this statement are copies of those recent
letters. The total number of people who have posted negative comments
or questioned this proposal is overwhelming. They range from Federal,
state and local officials, including the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, all the way down to individual surf fishermen
who simply want to enjoy the beaches that their tax dollars and fees
support. A year-round vehicle ban on Holgate would result in minimal
benefits to the Piping Plover population and would deprive the surf
fishing community of one of the most consistently productive surf
fishing areas along the Jersey Shore, an area that cannot reasonably be
accessed by surf fishermen without a motor vehicle. Unfortunately,
public access for fishing is only a secondary issue in the management
of the National Wildlife Refuges. The welfare of the wildlife comes
first. Therefore, I have no doubt that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will continue to over-rule public access issues in favor of
even minor benefits to wildlife.
There are tax and economic implications associated with a year-
round motor vehicle ban at Holgate that need to be considered as well.
The beaches are the foundation of Ocean County's largest industry,
coastal tourism, an industry whose viability is directly and totally
dependent on access to those beaches. An inaccessible beach is of
little use to the tourists who come to the shore to spend their hard
earned money. Tourism in Ocean County generates an estimated $1 billion
annually. In total, New Jersey's coastal economy returns over $3
billion per year to the Federal Government in tax revenues. Denying
reasonable access to the beach at Holgate as proposed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service would compromise these tax revenues, particularly
in Long Beach Township where I serve as Mayor.
That is why the passage of Congressman Saxton's bill, H.R. 896 is
so important. This bill will re-align the boundary of the Holgate Unit
to create an access corridor along the high water line at Holgate that
would not be located within the Wildlife Refuge. This would allow for
the passage of motor vehicles along the beachfront, and would also
relieve the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its regulatory obligation
to place wildlife protection above public access in this area. It would
essentially implement by law the compromise that was agreed to by all
parties, local, state and Federal, in 1990.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I
also want to thank Congressman Saxton for drafting this bill, which
will go a long way towards alleviating a controversial issue that I, as
an Ocean County Freeholder and the Mayor of Long Beach Township, have
been dealing with for many years on behalf of the people who elected me
to those offices.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.008
[The prepared statement of the Alliance for a Living Ocean
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.002
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Ashe?
STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. ASHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR REFUGES AND
WILDLIFE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our
views on H.R. 896. And it is a sad duty, indeed, to tell you
that we do not support enactment of H.R. 896.
And I appreciate your statements, and I hope that you know,
in some respects, I have to say that I have been as frustrated
as you. But I think, over the last 2 years, as we have looked
at this issue from every different angle, we have realized that
there this no latitude.
And we have asked our attorneys on numerous occasions and
the question from numerous perspectives. And the issue remains
that the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness was added to
the national wilderness preservation system by Congress without
any exception from the prohibitions in the Wilderness Act.
I know what you say about assurances were made. I think
that as I look at the record during that period of time, what
has been laid out are statements that were made by the
Administration at the time of submission that existing
recreational uses would not be affected. The statements that
were being made by the Administration were relative to the
Administration's proposal, which did not include the Holgate
Unit.
And at the time the Administration testified, they were
asked questions about the Holgate Unit, and their position was
that the unit should not be included because of the level of
public use that was going on there and because of the motorized
vehicle use that was going on on the refuge.
So I think the Administration at the time made it clear
that there were conflicting uses occurring on the Holgate
Peninsula. And I think their statements about the lack of
impact on ongoing recreational uses were not relevant to
Holgate because Holgate was not in their proposed package.
I think that as time passed, you are correct, I think
assurances were made. I think people glossed over the issue,
including the Fish and Wildlife Service. And the Service is
guilty of glossing over the issue of motor vehicle use between
the tidelands and the area above mean high tide.
You pointed out that the regulation, our regulation, allows
motorized equipment. In response to our conversations over the
last couple of years, I did go back and I again asked out
attorneys about that regulation, and can we exercise discretion
under the regulation.
And what they advised me is that our regulation on that
point is unlawful, that the Wilderness Act, in fact, authorizes
or gives the Secretary discretion to allow the use of airplanes
and motor boats where those uses are preexisting. The Service's
regulation broadened the language in the law, which does not
allow the grandfathering of motorized equipment.
And so, again, in response to our discussions over the last
several years, I did go back, in good faith, and ask those
questions of our attorneys. And the response that we got was,
in fact, that our regulations, the Service's regulation, on
that point is an unlawful expansion of the letter of the law in
terms of the Wilderness Act.
I also agree that the agreement that was stricken in 1990,
again, I think a good-faith agreement. But the agreement itself
recognizes that, as you read, that the tidelands, the
motorized-vehicles use could occur on the tidelands, the state-
owned tidelands, and that certainly is still our position
today.
I think where that agreement overstepped the boundary of
the law is when the Service in that agreement did say that
people could park within the wilderness. And again, as we put
that question again and again to our attorneys, they have told
us in very black and white terms, that we may not authorize the
use of motor vehicles within the wilderness unless we make a
determination that it necessary for the purposes of
administering the area as wilderness.
And so, again, I think that the Service overstepped its
bounds in writing that agreement. And that doesn't make it any
less frustrating to you, I am sure. But I think that is the
case.
You covered the factual basis pretty well, Mr. Chairman. I
will just summarize by saying that we will continue to be
committed to trying to work together with you to find
responsible ways of allowing public use on the peninsula,
especially fishing.
Fishing continues to be an authorized use. And we do
encourage people to visit the peninsula during the time when
the seasonal closures are lifted, to walk, to fish.
And we do believe there are other ways to get out to the
tip of the peninsula to enjoy those activities. And we will
look for ways to accommodate those other methods.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
Statement of Dan Ashe, Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present our views
on H.R. 896, a bill to adjust the boundaries of the Holgate Unit of the
Brigantine Wilderness Area within the Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge. This adjustment will allow motor vehicle access to the
peninsula at times of high tide, during which there would otherwise be
no vehicular access pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-
577). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) does not support
this legislation.
The Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1939
under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act to provide
estuarine and nesting habitats for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.
In 1960, the Federal Government acquired the Holgate area from the
National Audubon Society, and it became part of the Brigantine NWR. In
1975, Congress designated about 6,600 acres of the refuge--including
the Holgate area--as the Brigantine Wilderness Area. Congress combined
the Brigantine NWR with the Barnegat NWR in 1984 and renamed them the
Edwin B. Forsythe NWR. The refuge boundary and the wilderness boundary
for the Holgate Unit is the mean high tide line. The State of New
Jersey owns the tidelands portion of the beach, or intertidal zone (the
area below the mean high tide line), and the State's Tidelands Resource
Council controls public use in that zone.
The Brigantine Wilderness is one of over 600 wilderness units in
the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The NWPS is a
network of those areas designated by Congress as wilderness, and
managed by four Federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S.
Forest Service. Of the more than 105 million acres in the Wilderness
System, 20.6 million are managed by the Service on 65 refuges.
Wilderness comprises approximately 20 percent of the Refuge System.
The E.B. Forsythe NWR is a traditional nesting, migration, and
wintering area for waterfowl, marsh birds, and shore birds. The
Brigantine Wilderness Area is significant ecologically and geologically
in that it comprises unspoiled barrier-beach islands with a complex of
undeveloped and unspoiled marsh-estuarian islands. This habitat in
particular, and barrier beaches in general, has become extremely rare
in the highly developed northeast coast. The E.B. Forsythe NWR is a
mere 10 miles north of Atlantic City, yet is home to some of the most
important migratory bird habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The physical location, geography, and environment have also
helped to preserve the wilderness values of the area.
The definition of ``wilderness'' was provided by Congress in the
1964 Wilderness Act. The Act states that:
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his
own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an
area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled
by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An
area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to
preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears
to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with
the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand
acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable
its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4)
may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
Congress recognized the wilderness qualities of the refuge in 1975,
when it designated the Brigantine Wilderness Area, including the 256
acres (2.5 miles of beach and adjacent dunes) of the Holgate Unit; the
only Federal wilderness on the entire New Jersey shoreline.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits the public use of motor
vehicles in all wilderness areas, including the Brigantine Wilderness.
The 1977 Service policy for implementing the Wilderness Act stated that
public travel in a wilderness area would normally be accomplished by
foot, horseback, or non-motorized boating, unless exceptions were
granted by statute. This prohibition against the public use of motor
vehicles had been frequently ignored by the public and refuge managers
in the Holgate Unit, at least partly because of the difficulty in
determining the location of the mean high water line.
In 1988, the New Jersey Tidelands Resource Council approved a
three-year seasonal closure from April 15 into August of the area below
the mean high tide line of the Holgate Beach to all public uses. The
purpose of the closure was to allow the State of New Jersey to study
nesting piping plovers, a threatened species. The Service seasonally
closed the entire Holgate Unit above the mean high tide line to all
public uses during this time to complement the Council action. The
State and Federal action together seasonally halted all public use in
the entire Holgate peninsula.
In 1990, the ``Public Use Management for Holgate Unit'' plan
instituted a permanent seasonal public use closure (April 1 into
August) of the Holgate Unit and the adjoining intertidal zone
(tidelands) to protect piping plovers. The plan listed ``operation of
motorized vehicles in a wilderness area'' as a prohibited activity.
However, the plan also allowed over-the-sand vehicles to park in
wilderness, to ensure that the vehicles were not inundated by the
incoming tide. This provision does not comply with the Wilderness Act
and has, in practice, authorized motor vehicle use within the boundary
of the wilderness area.
In 1996, the refuge manager of E.B. Forsythe NWR began the process
of developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, for the
refuge. This involved collecting information on natural resources and
public use, developing goals, holding numerous public meetings,
distributing workbooks to collect public comments and, ultimately,
drafting a CCP/Environmental Assessment, which was released for public
review and comment in July of 2000. This process provided the Service
an opportunity to remedy its past inconsistent enforcement of the
prohibition of motor vehicle use in the Holgate Unit under the
Wilderness Act.
Secretary Gale Norton has committed that the Department of the
Interior will be a good steward of our lands and lakes and rivers. This
means that the Department does intend to enforce the requirements of
the Wilderness Act in wilderness areas. While the Department believes
that allowing motor vehicles to traverse and park between the
wilderness area of the Holgate Unit and the ocean would undermine the
wild character of the seashore, the Department recognizes that it is
the prerogative of Congress to designate wilderness areas and to adjust
boundaries.
I want to conclude by ensuring the Members of this Committee that
the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
will carry out the Secretary's mandate regarding the four C's of
consultation, cooperation and communication--all in the service of
conservation. Based on that commitment, we want to work with you and
concerned members of the public to identify methods to encourage
enjoyment of Holgate Beach, such as fishing, while still preserving the
area's wilderness character.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would welcome the
opportunity to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Saxton. Mr. McDowell?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MCDOWELL, DIVISION DIRECTOR OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
for the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, of which I am
the director, to support H.R. 896.
I think this bill represents a correction of a mistake and
I am a little shocked that the Service isn't in favor of the
bill since the bill would correct the frustrations related to
problems that have occurred there because of public access
issues.
I think this bill is not really about biological integrity.
I don't think that is an issue. I don't think ecological
integrity is an issue.
I think the bill is really about correcting a mistake that
was made many years ago and fulfilling public promises that
suddenly have become no longer a promise.
I think you should know that it is about 2.75 miles from
the parking area all the way to the tip of Holgate. This makes
it extremely difficult for handicapped people to walk that
distance, for folks to gain access to it who are healthy
overwise. But in some cases, just carrying the gear down there
is a problem. Keeping up with the migrating fish is another
issue.
And so, in order to maintain surf fishing in its
traditional way, I think this bill has to be passed.
You are going to exclude a lot of people from using this
resource, ``beach buggies'' used for surf fishing, which has
been traditional.
I think the options that are offered in the Service's plan
are not workable. They have offered some idea that there would
be a boat that would pick people up who wanted to make it to
the end of Holgate.
If you look at surf fishermen and realize that tides make a
difference in their activity. What time of day that they want
to fish is not a barrier; it is when the fish are there. So at
2 o'clock in the morning, they want to go because the tide is
going to be right and the fish are there.
So having a ferry or something, which has been offered in
the plan, is certainly not feasible.
I think this legislation is necessary to preserve the long-
standing tradition of surf fishing at Holgate, as I stated
earlier. And, on numerous occasions over the last 30 years, as
the Chairman spoke about, these traditional uses have been
maintained. So, in fact, there is a public promise that this
will continue.
I might point out, in March 1973, there was testimony given
by Curtis Bohlen, deputy assistant secretary at the Department
of Interior for Fish and Wildlife, and that testimony was,
there will be no change in public use due to the wilderness
status.
Now, the public perception doesn't include the fact that
Holgate was added afterwards. But there were no changes in the
regulatory posture of the Fish and Wildlife Service after that
time. And so the public is still convinced, and public trust is
that they will be able to use their beach buggy, get their
pass, and go surf fishing as they have in the past.
In 1990, the stakeholders' meeting that you spoke about,
Mr. Chairman, we were there. We had discussions about beach-
nesting birds. We have co-authority over endangered species.
And, clearly, the agreement, which the fishermen reluctantly
but did agree to was the beach closure that you mentioned
earlier.
And so the fishermen have been more than willing to
compromise.
Our biologists report, because of the closure working and
the fact that fishermen access the beach, there are no impacts
on piping plovers at this time.
The Service's draft comprehensive conservation plan--
because fishing is one of the six priorities of the public use
policy dictated in the Refuge Improvement Act, it is hard to
see why this a conflict that needs to be brought up now.
Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with the
regional director and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff
about Holgate and the access issue, access being one of the
biggest issues in New Jersey in terms of recreational use of
the Fish and Wildlife resource. Although sympathetic to our
concerns, the Service indicated it didn't have the legal
authority to permit vehicle use.
There is no, therefore, any alternative except pass this
law. And we are talking about a very small piece of land; 30
feet, I believe, it was the bill says, by 2.75 miles.
You know, fishing is designated as a priority use, so it
would seem to me the Service would go along with this and
restore the public's trust in public agencies that manage
public land.
H.R. 896 seems to be the only solution to provide
assurances given to fishermen over the years. Environmentally
responsible fishermen access and safe access is certainly in
the best interest of the public. It will still maintain the
wilderness experience.
These kinds of beaches are dearly loved by New Jersey
citizens, with dunes and beach being maintained in an
environmentally sensitive way. And they certainly respect them.
In summary, H.R. 896 will preserve the long-standing
tradition of surf fishing, with the use of motorized vehicles
at Holgate. And the assurances given to fishermen over the
years will still provide for the protection necessary for both
the resources at the site and the fish wildlife resources.
So I thank you deeply for the opportunity to support this
legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDowell follows:]
Statement of Robert McDowell, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I want to thank you for holding this
hearing today in order to gather important testimony pertaining to H.R.
896.
As the Director of New Jersey's Division of Fish and Wildlife, I am
stating for the record that New Jersey strongly supports H.R. 896.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has just completed adoption of a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the New Jersey Coast Refuges (Edwin
B. Forsythe and Cape May Wildlife Refuges). The management alternative
selected for the Forsythe Refuge prohibits motor vehicle use year-round
in the Brigantine Wilderness Area above the mean high tide line. The
wilderness area is located at the southern most tip of the Holgate Unit
on Long Beach Island, three miles from the refuge's parking areas. Surf
fishing at this area has been a popular traditional use for decades. As
a result of the motor vehicle ban, surf fishermen will no longer be
able to access the popular surf fishing locations at the Holgate Unit.
There are essentially no real options for surf fishermen to
continue to utilize Holgate if motor vehicles are prohibited. Few
people are capable of lugging the necessary gear and tackle for the
three mile walk on the sand, both in and out of the Holgate Unit. I
have serious reservations about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
``initiation of efforts to establish a seasonal boat concession to
ferry anglers to the southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula'' as they
suggested in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Service
provided no details about this ``seasonal boat concession''. Some very
important information that was not provided include:
LWhat is meant by seasonal?
LWhat is the frequency of the boat departures/return?
LWill it run 24 hours a day?
LWhat about weather considerations?
LWill there be a fee involved to access this area
traditionally accessible to the public?
Due to these concerns I do not believe the ``seasonal boat
concession'' is a viable alternative to provide fishermen access to
Holgate's beach.
This legislation is necessary to preserve a long-standing tradition
of surf fishing at the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area
in a safe and traditional manner. On numerous occasions over the last
30 years, assurances have been made that traditional uses, with
particular emphasis on fishermen access, in the Brigantine Wilderness
Area will remain unchanged. To emphasize my point, I would just like to
review a brief history of this action.
In a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document entitled the 1971
Brigantine Wilderness Proposal under the section, ``Social and Economic
Consideration'' it states ``There will be no change in public use due
to wilderness status. Fishermen and nature enthusiasts would experience
no change in access.''
In March 1973, in testimony given before the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs on the Designation of Brigantine Wilderness Area
(H.R. 5422), E. U. Curtis Bohlen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Department of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks testified that,
``there will be no change in public use due to wilderness status, boats
would still be permitted to travel the waterways below mean high tide
and land on beaches. Fishermen and nature enthusiasts would experience
no change in access and would find added pleasure in the assurance of
permanent protection for the solitude and pristine beauty of the
proposed wilderness area''.
In January 1975, Congress designated 6,600 acres of Forsythe Refuge
as the Brigantine Wilderness (P.L. 93-632). Surf fishermen were
permitted continued access to Holgate and the traditional use
continued.
In 1990, stakeholders, including Federal and State agencies,
fishermen groups, local officials and the Forsythe management worked
hard to formalize an agreement for the seasonal closure of the beach
from April 15 through August 31 in order to protect piping plovers, a
Federal and state listed endangered species. Prior to the seasonal
closure, there was significant risk that off road vehicles could
accidentally kill plover chicks and/or impede their movement between
the upper beach and the tide line where they feed. Off road vehicle use
could also result in diminished food resources for piping plovers, if
they were driven through the tidal lines where the plovers feed. Prior
to the seasonal closure, off road vehicles used at Holgate may have
affected state endangered species including the least tern and black
skimmer that also nest on the beach at Holgate. I would like to
emphasize that since the seasonal closure has been in effect, I believe
that adverse impacts to the piping plover or their essential habitat
resulting from off road vehicle use of Holgate have been eliminated.
The fishermen and local officials that worked with the USFWS in the
past to support endangered species protections are now faced with a
year-round closure that is not designed to protect endangered species.
The Service's Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan states that,
``Because fishing is one of six priority general public uses of the
Refuge system, it'shall receive priority consideration in refuge
planning and management.'' I fail to see how the Service seriously
considered fishing as a priority when the decision to prevent fishing
access to this area was made. Public review of the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan generated an overwhelming majority of adverse
comments to the year round closure to Holgate from fishermen, local
officials, the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife, NJ congressional
representatives and former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman. All
requests to the Service for a rational resolution to this issue have
not been answered.
Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with USFWS regional
staff, about the Holgate access issue. Although sympathetic to the
State's concerns, the Service indicated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service did not have the legal authority to permit motor vehicle use in
wilderness areas. There is, therefore, no alternative but to pass H.R.
896 to ensure continued access for surf fishermen.
I believe the record on this issue is clear. Fishing is designated
a priority use in the Federal Refuge system. Time and again, it has
been stated that ``wilderness'' status at the Brigantine Wilderness
Area will not affect fishermen's access and there is no question of the
traditional use of surf fishing with the use of motorized vehicles at
Holgate.
H.R. 896 will provide the assurances given to fishermen over the
last 30 years. A narrow transition zone for vehicle use above the high
tide line to allow safe, environmentally responsible fishermen access
and parking will not have a negative impact on the ``wilderness area''
and ``wilderness experience''. In fact, surf fishing has always been
part of the wilderness experience at Holgate. This bill further
acknowledges the importance of management of the area for the piping
plover and allows the Secretary of Interior to continue to restrict
access during the breeding season.
In summary, H.R. 896 will preserve the long-standing tradition of
surf fishing at Holgate and provide the assurances given fishermen over
the years while still protecting the piping plover. I encourage you to
support and release H.R. 896 from committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this legislation.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Director.
Freeholder Kelly?
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. KELLY, FREEHOLDER DIRECTOR, OCEAN COUNTY
BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS
Mr. Kelly. Thank you very much. And, first, I want to thank
you, Congressman Saxton, a longtime friend and one who has
discussed this issue with the board of freeholders for a number
of years, to invite me here this morning.
And it should come as no surprise that I am here today to
speak in favor of H.R. 896 that was introduced by Congressman
Saxton, one that would redefine the boundary of the Holgate
Unit of the Edwin B. Forsythe wildlife management area.
This new boundary would provide an access corridor along
the waterline to allow surf fishermen in motor vehicles to
continue traditional recreation surf fishing along the Holgate
beachfront.
I want to stress that this is a traditional recreational
activity on Long Beach Island, long predating the establishment
of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. Fishermen
have been driving vehicles there for as long as there have been
vehicles that could traverse the sand.
I have this testimony that I have given in writing. I
wanted to hold a dialogue today with Members of Congress about
public trust.
And I was just frustrated and shocked to hear Mr. Ashe talk
about the fact that he went to his attorneys to ask about
whether in fact this would be allowed or not, and now opposes
the bill because some attorney said that, in fact, the statutes
won't allow it.
Well, we can agree or disagree that in the legislation
today it is allowed or not allowed. But there can be no doubt
that H.R. 896 would allow this traditional use.
And let me tell you why it is important. There is a public
trust issue. It was discussed here by the DEP. And the public
trust is between the people and their representatives, whether
those representatives are from the halls of Congress, the board
of freeholders, or the mayor.
We hold a public trust. And when we agree with the people
of our area that there is a certain thing that we will allow,
whatever that may be--this time it is public access--then I
think that we ought reach our agreement.
And you want to know what? They have kept their agreement.
The sportsmen that use this facility, the outdoor sportsmen,
are first and foremost environmentalists. They care about the
environmental needs of Ocean County as much as anyone that sits
in Washington, DC. I guarantee it. I represent them locally. I
know how much they care.
And in fact, it was already talked about twice this
morning, but in 1990, there came an issue about the piping
plover and whether or not there was a problem with the piping
plover. And even though they didn't agree with it in their
heart, they agreed that they will go along with the fact that
we closed that refuge to all vehicle traffic from April to
August each year, because that is the breeding season of this
bird. And they have kept that promise.
They have kept their promise to maintain this area in a
pristine manner, and it has been done.
H.R. 896 does not remove this area from the wildlife
refuge. In fact, it maintains it as a wildlife refuge. It
simply allows a traditional use, one that has been met with
responsibly to continue into the future.
I think it is a trust that we hold with the outdoor
sportsmen. I think we should continue to do that. I appreciate
this bill, and it has the full support and endorsement of the
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and we hope that it
will be passed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
Statement of John P. Kelly, Ocean County Freeholder Director and Mayor,
Eagleswood Township
Good Morning. I am John Kelly, Ocean County Freeholder Director and
Mayor of Eagleswood Township. I am here today to speak in favor of H.R.
896, a bill introduced by Congressman Saxton that would redefine the
boundary of the Holgate Unit of the Edwin B. Forsythe Wildlife
Management Area. This new boundary would provide an access corridor
along the waterline to allow surf fishermen in motor vehicles to
continue traditional recreational surf fishing along the Holgate
beachfront. I want to stress that this is a traditional recreational
activity on Long Beach Island, long predating the establishment of the
Edwin B. Forsythe Wildlife Refuge. Fishermen have been driving vehicles
along the beach to get to where the fish are as long as there have been
motor vehicles that could make the trip through the sand.
Since the establishment of the Holgate Unit there has been an
ongoing debate between the public and officials representing the
recreational fishing community and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concerning motor vehicles on the beach. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is charged with protecting wildlife within the National
Wildlife Refuge System. This is their primary goal. Accordingly, public
access to Refuge property is extremely limited by the Service in an
effort to provide a habitat where wildlife can thrive unimpeded by
humans. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service views any access to
the Holgate Unit by motor vehicles as an encroachment on the habitat of
the Piping Plover, there is a direct conflict between the primary goal
of the Wildlife Refuge System and the recreational fishing community
who have fished along the beach at Holgate for generations. This is a
conflict that I do not believe will be resolved as long as the
beachfront is considered part of the Wildlife Refuge System.
In 1990, an agreement was reached between the recreational fishing
community and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to close the Holgate
Unit to motor vehicles during the Piping Plover breeding season. Being
sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts at heart, the fishermen agreed to
this seasonal closure which runs from April to August. Now, in 2001 the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to break this agreement and
is again trying to bar motor vehicles from Holgate year round. Although
it is exasperating to have to deal with this issue again, we should not
be surprised. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is simply working to
achieve their primary goals concerning the National Wildlife Refuge
System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should not be surprised
at the wave of public opposition to their proposal. From our view, we
that seek to preserve the public's access to public lands settled this
matter in 1990. We compromised then, and there is no room to compromise
now.
Over the years, the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders has
adopted a number of resolutions opposing the closure of the Holgate
Unit to motor vehicles on a year round basis. Most recently, comments
were sent to the Department of the Interior by both Freeholder James J.
Mancini, who also serves as the Mayor of Long Beach Township and
myself, urging the Department to stop further consideration of any
Refuge Plan that includes a year round vehicle ban on Holgate. Attached
to this statement are copies of those recent letters. The total number
of people who have posted negative comments or questioned this proposal
is overwhelming. They range from Federal, state and local officials,
including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, all
the way down to individual surf fishermen who simply want to enjoy the
beaches that their tax dollars and fees support. A year-round vehicle
ban on Holgate would result in minimal benefits to the Piping Plover
population and would deprive the surf fishing community of one of the
most consistently productive surf fishing areas along the Jersey Shore,
an area that cannot reasonably be accessed by surf fishermen without a
motor vehicle. Unfortunately, public access for fishing is only a
secondary issue in the management of the National Wildlife Refuges. The
welfare of the wildlife comes first. Therefore, I have no doubt that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to over-rule public
access issues in favor of even minor benefits to wildlife.
There are tax and economic implications associated with a year-
round motor vehicle ban at Holgate that need to be considered as well.
The beaches are the foundation of Ocean County's largest industry,
coastal tourism, an industry whose viability is directly and totally
dependent on access to those beaches. An inaccessible beach is of
little use to the tourists who come to the shore to spend their hard
earned money. Tourism in Ocean County generates an estimated $1 billion
annually. In total, New Jersey's coastal economy returns over $3
billion per year to the Federal Government in tax revenues. Denying
reasonable access to the beach at Holgate as proposed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service would compromise these tax revenues, particularly
on Long Beach Island.
That is why the passage of Congressman Saxton's bill, H.R. 896 is
so important. This bill will re-align the boundary of the Holgate Unit
to create an access corridor along the high water line at Holgate that
would not be located within the Wildlife Refuge. This would allow for
the passage of motor vehicles along the beachfront, and would also
relieve the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its regulatory obligation
to place wildlife protection above public access in this area. It would
essentially implement by law the compromise that was agreed to by all
parties, local, state and Federal, in 1990.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I
also want to thank Congressman Saxton for drafting this bill, which
will go a long way towards alleviating a controversial issue that the
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders has been dealing with for many
years on behalf of the people of Ocean County.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.011
Mr. Saxton. Freeholder Kelly, thank you very much.
I can tell how strongly you meant those words, and we
appreciate you coming here to share that with us.
Mr. Savadove?
STATEMENT OF LARRY SAVADOVE, BEACH HAVEN, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Savadove. Thanks for having me. I am happy to be here
and glad to add my voice.
My name is Larry Savadove. I live on Long Beach Island in
New Jersey. I am a contributing editor to several publications
there, and I have written about environmental topics, but I am
here as a private citizen.
I am here to plead for a small bit of wilderness at the tip
of narrow island in a state that would be anybody's last guess
as a place where you could find any wilderness at all.
What is known as the Holgate end of my island is part of
the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, an amazing put-
together of salt marshes, wetlands, sedge islands in the bay,
and what snippets of beach have managed to survive. It is a
place where piping plovers and black skimmers breed and spawn,
gulls congregate, migrating birds take a break.
But I am not pleading for their sake. I am pleading for
ours.
Long Beach Island is popular vacation spot. During most of
the year, you will find about 5,000 people at any one time
strung along its 18 miles.
But during the summer, the population shoots up to about
150,000. They stay in everything from trailer parks to
multimillion-dollar mansions. The place has gotten so popular,
there are very empty spaces left.
We barely managed to save the dunes, which some property
owners wanted to cut down because they obstructed the view.
There are almost no bay beaches left, and most of the marshes
are gone.
By some stroke of luck, the 3 miles at Holgate have been
spared, one spot where the place looks the way it did before we
all got there.
But it already is part of a refuge, so the issue is not
whether to save it but what to save it for. To protect the
piping plover, which is admittedly one of nature's dumber
birds, both vehicles and beach workers have long been banned
from the place during the summer nesting and fledging season.
Some people complain; most comply. Some fishermen grumble
about government interference, but they follow the rules.
But when Forsythe manager Steve Atzert said he planned to
close Holgate to vehicles all the time, in line with the
Wilderness Act and under the sensible argument that wilderness
doesn't mean where the trucks and the SUVs roam, a few of them
acted as if he had trod on the Constitution, violated the laws
of Moses, and threatened the American way of life.
``What abut our rights?'' they wailed.
My father was a fisherman and a lawyer, just a small-town
lawyer, but with a deep sense of rights and wrongs. He would
have hooted at the idea of the rights of fishermen as they are
being represented.
The first thing he would ask would be: What about the
rights of others, the beachwalkers, and the shell hunters, and
sand-castle builders, and kids digging and tumbling and getting
up close and personal with nature, none of whom appreciate the
place being turned into just another highway.
Motor vehicles of one kind or another have just about taken
over all the world. I call it the revenge of the dinosaurs.
Communities are built to their convenience. Roads are cut
through forests and across deserts. And where they can't be,
the off-road vehicle charges in--all-terrain vehicles,
snowmobiles, mountain motorbikes.
There is hardly any place left where the gassy, greasy,
fuming, vrooming motor vehicle has not made us all its
worshipful and sacrificing subjects. Why can't we keep a few
places as a refuge not just for other species but from that
one?
None of the arguments for allowing vehicles in the refuge
hold much water. There are 18 miles of the island where
fishermen can drive. We are looking at 3 miles.
Some of them insist that the fishing is better at that end,
but I bet the fish don't know that. I have never met a
fisherman without an excuse, including my father. ``Oh, if only
I could have gone over there or in there or out yonder, I would
have scored big time.''
There was a compromise suggested that vehicles be allowed,
so long as they stayed below the high-tide line. That would
mean leaving before the tide came in. ``What if the fish start
biting then?'' came a heated response.
If you are out on a boat fishing and the captain says it is
time to turn back because he is running out of fuel, you don't
say, ``Oh, just another minute, Cap.''
This bill aims to move that line up the beach. Some of the
fishermen I have talked to go on about tradition; since they
have always done it, they should always be able to do it.
People used to dynamite fish, too. People used to have parties
on the beach with bonfires. Hunters used to shoot shore birds--
not for food, just to rack up a score.
I have seen pictures of a hunter standing by a pile of dead
birds that must have 300 or 400 birds thick. It was an old and,
I suppose, an honored tradition.
I will give you an even older tradition: walking on a
natural beach without looking at tire tracks, without stepping
in oil or breathing in carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
sulfur trioxide.
Part of the problem is that more and more people are using
bigger and heavier vehicles. It isn't enough to carry a fishing
pole and a bait bucket anymore. You need several poles, coolers
for the bait and the beer, a couple of tackle boxes, some
chairs, and who knows what all.
They have become victims of themselves. Nobody ever made
much of a fuss over a few dune buggies. Times change.
So long as damn near anybody can buy damn near any kind of
vehicle and take it damn near anyplace he or she pleases, there
is no hope of keeping any part of this planet clean.
We ought to start stopping this somewhere. And if it can't
be in a wilderness area, then where?
Mr. Atzert is trying to follow the law of the land, which
is his job. He has been attacked, called nasty names. The
latest piece I read described him as ``an arrogant, uninformed,
ambitious, bureaucratic zealot''--
[Laughter.]
--and he has been threatened.
In fact, I was told that if I came here to testify, I might
find my tires slashed.
I am glad Mr. Atzert is a zealot. The law is a good law,
good for all us. It says that some places should be preserved
and in as natural a state as possible.
If you are not sure why that is a good idea, you have only
to visit someplace like Yellowstone or Yosemite, wait in long
lines of rumbling motor vehicles, breathe the fumes, see the
smog rise up the tall trees, and shake your head at the trash
lining the pathway, and listen to the noise.
Is it anybody's fault that more people want to enjoy
nature? No. But it is our fault if we let them destroy it.
Many people who oppose Mr. Saxton's bill are worried about
that dread monster, precedent. I myself do not believe that the
banning or allowing of vehicles on 3 miles of beach at Holgate
will much influence a decision to cut or not cut roads in vast
Western wilderness areas, or drill or not drill for oil in the
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But it will have a great
effect on Long Beach Island and the people who live there. They
are not all fishermen.
There are those who argue that, ``Long Beach Island is
already so built up, what difference does a little dab at this
end of island make? And besides, you can see the towers of
Atlantic City across the bay.''
Mr. Atzert wants to preserve a small part of my island in
as natural and primal state as possible. Despite the rising up
of some people and beach buggy enthusiasts and fishermen, most
people want this too. In New Jersey we voted to allot taxes for
this. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently trying to
restore whole sections of Barnegat Bay and its shores and
islands.
Here we have a pristine stretch that, hopefully, we won't
have to 1 day restore, that will cost very little to preserve,
that will be a blessing and a joy and an affirmation that we
won't give the whole world over to the motor vehicle.
The poet Gerard Manly Hopkins said, ``What would the world
be once bereft of wet and wildness? Let them be left. O let
them be left, wildness and wet. Long live the weeds and the
wilderness yet.''
I plead with you, let them be left.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Savadove follows:]
Statement of Laurence Savadove, Long Beach Island, New Jersey, on H.R.
896
My name is Larry Savadove. I live on Long Beach Island in New
Jersey. I am a contributing editor to several publications there and
have written about environmental topics, but I am here as a private
citizen.
I am here to plead for a small bit of wilderness at the tip of a
narrow island in a state that would be anybody's last guess as a place
where you could find any wilderness at all. What is known as the
Holgate end of my island is part of the Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge, an amazing put-together of salt marshes, wetlands,
sedge islands in the bay and what snippets of beach have managed to
survive. It's a place where piping plovers and black skimmers breed and
spawn, gulls congregate, migrating birds take a break.
I am not pleading for their sake, though. I am pleading for ours.
Long Beach Island is a popular vacation spot. During most of the
year you'll find about 5,000 people at any one time strung along its
eighteen habitable miles but during the summer the population shoots up
to about 150,000. They stay in everything from trailer parks to multi-
million dollar mansions. The place has gotten so popular there are very
few empty spaces left. We barely managed to save the dunes, which some
property owners wanted to cut down because they obstructed the view.
There are almost no bay beaches left. Most of the marshes are gone.
By some stroke of luck, or accident, the three miles at Holgate
have been spared, one spot where the place looks the way it did before
we got there.
But it is part of a refuge. So the issue is not whether to save it
but what to save it for. To protect the piping plover, admittedly one
of nature's dumber birds, both vehicles and beachwalkers have long been
banned from the place during the summer nesting and fledging season.
Some people complain, most comply. Some fishermen grumble about
government interference, but they follow the rules.
But when Forsythe manager Steve Atzert said he planned to close
Holgate to vehicles all the time, in line with the Wilderness Act and
under the sensible argument that ``wilderness'' doesn't mean where the
trucks and the SUVs roam, a few reacted as if he had trod on the
constitution, violated the laws of Moses and threatened the American
way of life.
``What about our rights?'' they wailed.
My father was a fisherman, and a lawyer, just a small town lawyer
but with a deep sense of rights, and wrongs. He would have hooted at
the idea of the ``rights'' of fishermen as they are being represented.
The first thing he'd ask would be, What about the rights of others, the
beachwalkers and shell hunters and sandcastle builders and seaglass
collectors and kids digging and tumbling and getting up close and
personal with nature, none of whom appreciate the place being turned
into just another highway?
Motor vehicles of one kind or another have all but taken over the
world. I call it the revenge of the dinosaurs. Communities are built to
their convenience, roads are cut through forests and across deserts,
and where they can't be, the off-road vehicle charges in--all-terrain
vehicles, snowmobiles, mountain motorbikes. People ride tractors
nowadays to mow a quarter-acre of lawn. There is hardly any place left
where the gassy, greasy, fuming, vrooming motor vehicle has not made us
all its worshipful and sacrificing subjects.
Why can't we keep a few places as a refuge, not just for other
species but from that one? None of the arguments for allowing vehicles
in the refuge hold much water. There are 18 miles of the island where
fishermen can drive. We're looking at three miles. Some of them insist
the fishing is better at that end, but I'll bet the fish don't know
that. I've never met a fisherman without an excuse--including my
father: ``Oh, if only I could have gone over there, or in there, or out
yonder I would have scored big time.''
There was a compromise suggested, that vehicles be allowed so long
as they stayed below the high tide line. That would mean leaving before
the tide came in.''What if the fish start biting then?'' came a heated
response. If you're out on a boat and the captain says it's time to
turn back because he's running out of fuel you don't say, ``Oh, just
another minute, Cap.''
This bill aims to move that line up the beach. Some of the
fishermen I've talked to go on about tradition: since they've always
done it they should always be able to do it. People used to dynamite
fish, too. People used to have parties on the beach with bonfires.
People used to let their dogs run loose on the beach. Hunters used to
shoot shore birds, not for food just to rack up a score. I've seen
pictures of a hunter in front of a pile of dead birds. It was an old
and, I suppose, honored tradition.
I'll give you an even older tradition: walking on a natural beach
without looking at tire tracks without stepping in oil or breathing in
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur trioxide.
Part of the problem is that more and more people are using bigger
and heavier vehicles. It isn't enough to carry a fishing pole and bait
bucket anymore. You need several poles, coolers for the bait and the
beer, a couple of tackle boxes, some chairs and who knows what all.
They have become victims of themselves. Nobody ever made much of a fuss
over a few dune buggies. Times change.
Mr. Atzert is trying to follow the law of the land, which is his
job. He has been attacked, called nasty names--the latest piece I read
described him as an ``arrogant, uninformed, ambitious, bureaucratic
zealot''--and been threatened. In fact I was warned that if I came here
to testify I might find my tires slashed ``or worse.''
I am glad Mr. Atzert is a zealot. The law is a good law, good for
all of us. It says that some places should be preserved in as natural a
state as possible. If you're not sure why that's a good idea you have
only to visit someplace like Yellowstone or Yosemite, wait in long
lines of rumbling motor vehicles, breath the fumes, see the smog rise
among the tall trees, shake your head at the trash lining the pathways.
And listen to the noise.
Is it anybody's ``fault'' that more people want to enjoy nature?
No, but it is our fault if we let them destroy it.
Many people who oppose Mr. Saxton's bill are worried about that
dread monster, precedent. I myself do not believe that the banning or
allowing of vehicles on three miles of beach at Holgate will much
influence a decision to cut or not cut roads in vast western wilderness
areas or drill or not drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife
Refuge. But it will have a great effect on Long Beach Island and the
people who live there.
There are those who argue that Long Beach Island is already so
built up, what difference does this little dab of it make? And beside,
you can see the towers of Atlantic City in the distance. Mr. Atzert
wants to preserve a small part of my island in as natural and primal a
state as possible. Despite the rising up of some fishermen and beach
buggy enthusiasts, most people want this. In New Jersey we voted to
allot taxes for this. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently trying
to restore whole sections of Barnegat Bay and its shores and islands.
Here we have a pristine stretch that hopefully we won't have to one
day restore, that will cost very little to preserve, that will be a
blessing and a joy and an affirmation that we won't give the whole
world over to the motor vehicle.
I and many others have applauded Mr. Saxton's stand on preserving
our natural heritage, much trickier in New Jersey, I expect, than, say,
Alaska. I was there when he opened the Jacques Cousteau National
Estuary Research Reserve on the Mullica River. I interviewed him when
he stood up to longline fishermen last year, crossing some particularly
raucous picket lines. Most of us on the Island have approved of most of
his stands. We're a little disappointed in this one.
The poet Gerard Manly Hopkins said, ``What would the world be, once
bereft/ Of wet and wildness? Let them be left,/ O, let them be left,
wildness and wet;/ Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.''
I plead with you, ``Let them be left.''
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Savadove.
Mr. DeLeonard?
STATEMENT OF BOB DELEONARD, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY BEACH BUGGY
ASSOCIATION
Mr. DeLeonard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I represent the New Jersey Beach Buggy Association. We are
a statewide organization of over 1,800 members, and we advocate
reasonable and responsible beach access in the State of New
Jersey.
I am also Executive Director of United Mobile Sport
Fishermen, which is an association comprised of similar beach
buggy associations from North Carolina to Massachusetts. And I
speak for all of those organizations as well.
There may be some misconceptions on what a beach buggy is.
When you hear the word ``beach buggy,'' don't be thinking the
word ``dune buggy.'' It is not one of the pipe-welded kind of
Volkswagens. It is actually a registered, inspected pickup
truck or SUV.
And we don't even condone walking on dunes, let alone
driving on them, as they are very fragile pieces of beach.
So when you just hear ``beach buggy,'' don't be thinking
``dune buggies.'' These vehicles are just, by and large, big
tackle boxes we use just to get our equipment to where we want
to fish. And don't confuse it with the term ``dune buggy.''
By the way, on Holgate, from April 1 to September 1, there
is no walk-on access permitted either, during that time, let
alone vehicle access. There is no access at all.
New Jersey Beach Buggy Association works closely with the
State Department of Parks and Forestry. We are, in fact, the
largest volunteer organization in the state in that regard.
We, of course, support H.R. 896. H.R. 896 would just make
statutory what was made a promise in 1990 and, to start with,
in 1973. When the powers that be--it is before my time in
1973--were going to propose what is now the Edwin B. Forsythe
National Wildlife Refuge to be part of the Federal wilderness
program, Holgate was not even going to be continued because, as
an assistant secretary of the Department of Interior mentioned,
the public could never enjoy a wilderness experience there.
As Congressman Saxton alluded to, New Jersey Beach Buggy
Association collaborated with the New Jersey Sierra Club. In
Hope Cobb's testimony in 1973, which I have here--Hope Cobb was
president of New Jersey Sierra Club in 1973. The president of
New Jersey Beach Buggy Association, Bob Lick, and she
collaborated on Ms. Cobb's testimony, praising New Jersey Beach
Buggy Association, under continued stewardship at Holgate, and
urging, over the objections of the Department of Interior, that
Holgate be included as part of the Wilderness Act under the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
New Jersey Beach Buggy Association would never have agreed
to these terms if beach access for beach buggies was not
guaranteed at the time. Senator Case, who introduced the bill
in the Senate to include into the wilderness, assured Bob Lick
at the time that since the beach is state-owned land, the
question didn't even apply.
I may point out, there was a tour road in the middle of
Holgate prior to the wilderness designation, an auto tour. You
know, you could drive your car in there and there would be
little way-stops on the side, and the people could get a
representative view of what sedge islands and the vegetation on
beach front looks like that they wouldn't normally enjoy.
The day that the wilderness was designated at Holgate,
those tours had to stop. They stopped the tours and the auto
tours in the middle of the peninsula and they did not stop the
beaches. Again, they didn't see a need to. It was a state-owned
beach.
It has been 60 years since this ongoing beach access has
been allowed to continue.
Endangered piping plovers are not an issue. There has never
been an instance in New Jersey of a piping plover being hit by
a beach buggy. It has happened five times in other states:
twice in Long Island, and three times in Massachusetts, and 22
times documented by Fish and Wildlife Service vehicles.
The fact remains that Holgate is a part of the Federal
wilderness. Any wilderness you get in New Jersey ought to be
something special. In a state with a denser population than
India or Japan, I think any wilderness you get, you ought to
try to preserve it and make everyone happy to have it. This
isn't the case here.
I think it is a little strange that the same laws that
apply to Federal wilderness in Alaska in Rocky Mountain states
are also applied in New Jersey. I think a 30-foot barrier, if
you want to call it that, just so when high tide occurs, an
unusually high tide, and a person's tire would happen to hit
the wilderness, this would just keep the vehicles out of the
water.
The mean high tide mark that is the basis for this tide is
not a day-to-day thing. It is an 18.5-year average. And I am
not even sure where that is. I am not sure anyone does. And I
don't even know who determined such a thing.
An amicable and equitable anti-development solution was
worked out to give Holgate protection. Continued recreational
use was promised. That promise was reinforced by and agreement
between Representative Saxton and Fish and Wildlife in 1990.
And now the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to renege.
I urge the Committee to please don't let them renege on
that agreement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLeonard follows:]
Statement of Robert DeLeonard,, President, New Jersey Beach Buggy
Association, on H.R. 896
The Chairman. My name is Bob DeLeonard and I am appearing today as
President of the New Jersey Beach Buggy Association (NJBBA). We greatly
appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee and
register our strong support for H.R. 896. On behalf of the Association
we thank you for promptly scheduling a hearing on this important bill.
We also commend Rep. Saxton for his leadership and continued support on
behalf of wildlife dependent recreation within units of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
The New Jersey Beach Buggy Association, founded at Island Beach
State Park, is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1954. The
NJBBA is not a fishing club. It is an association of people who all
want the same thing. That is to be able to use a mobile sport fishing
vehicle while in pursuit of their favorite hobby, mainly surf fishing.
The majority of the members do belong to fishing clubs, but they still
realize that one group is needed to lead the way in the fight for our
right of continued and reasonable beaches access.
Please do not confuse our beach buggies with present day, modified
VW fame types with roll bars and pipe welding. Our beach buggies come
in all shape and sizes and are mobile sport fishing vehicles, which
ride the level beach, entering and leaving by, access and egress trails
approved by authorities. Members must not travel on any dunes or
vegetation, as this practice is not consistent with the philosophy of
the organization with reference to the preservation of our coastal
resources.
H.R. 896 would assure that express promises made by Congress 28
years ago would continue to be honored. This bill would assure that
important recreational opportunities will be preserved and that
environmentally benign traditional uses will be able to continue. We
urge the Subcommittee to act quickly and favorably on this measure.
Rep. Saxton's measure simply keeps a promise: it would statutorily
assure what we were promised years ago--that surf fishermen could
continue to access Holgate using beach buggies. Over 28 years ago surf
fishermen and the environmental community banded together to guarantee
the conservation of the wildlife resources of Holgate Beach. We worked
with Congress to have this portion of then Brigantine National Wildlife
Refuge designated wilderness to prevent unwanted commercial development
of the beach. However, we were repeatedly assured that this commitment
to conservation would not adversely impact our ability to use beach
buggies for surf fishing. With those assurances from Congress, we
strongly supported the wilderness designation. We are bitter that the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seems intent on disregarding those
promises and banning us from the very beach we helped to save. The
Association is heartened that Congress appears to understand the need
to honor promises and commitments and it can do so by passing H.R. 896.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced on February 14 a
pending decision to limit beach access for the Holgate Unit of the
Brigantine Wilderness Area. Under this directive, motor vehicle use by
the public would be limited to the area below the mean high tide mark.
The mean high tide mark is an 18.5 year average, not a day to day
thing. At this time, I do not know where it falls. It may be 50 yards
out in the ocean or it may be the entire peninsula. I wonder if FWS
knows. Their brochure on beach use shows it as the wet sand between the
tides. This is wrong, although many people are not aware.
Because the limiting of beach vehicles is so controversial, the FWS
Acting Regional Director provided a 30 day public review period before
signing off on the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This
period ended on March 19, 2001. As of this date, June 7, 2001, it has
yet to be signed.
FWS has chosen Alternative B of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP), which was the Service's proposed action all along. Besides
limiting, or perhaps banning altogether, vehicle use on the beach, this
alternative also triples the refuge staff, triples the operating
budget, and makes provisions for ``taking'' additional land outside the
boundary of the Refuge. The current staff level is 17. Alternative B
would raise this to 42. Staff and projects funding for the next 15
years is currently $15.3 million. ``B'' would raise this to $54.2
million. Land protection is currently $19.7 million for 15 years. ``B''
would raise this figure to $57.7 million. Land protection for what? It
is a Federal wilderness!
While it is true that the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge is protected under the Wilderness Act of 1964, the beachfront
that abuts the property is public land, which has been used by mobile
sport fishermen for generations before the refuge was established.
These ``beach buggies'' are inspected, insured, street legal pick up
trucks or sport utility vehicles that drive at slow speeds along the
beach looking for a good place to wet a line. They are not ATV dune
buggies racing aimlessly down the beach. It is not consistent with the
NJBBA code of ethics to walk on the dunes, let alone drive on them, as
they are a very fragile and priceless part of the ecosystem.
In 1973 when the Brigantine Wilderness area was being proposed,
Holgate was not even going to be considered as part of it. The
Department of the Interior did not want to include it because the
public would never be able to get a true wilderness experience there.
It was added at the last hour at the urging of the NJ Sierra Club, with
backing of NJBBA. NJBBA President Bob Lick collaborated with Hope Cobb,
President of the NJ Sierra Club on Ms. Cobb's testimony pushing for
inclusion of Holgate on April 12, 1973. These diverse organizations
came together to prevent construction of a proposed bridge from the
south, with provisions that existing access and usage prevail. At the
time, opinion was widely held that the least expensive way for
development was to go through public land. NJBBA and the Sierra Club
did not think that Refuge protection was strong enough to prevent this
bridge construction and resulting development and sought statutory
protection provided by Wilderness designation. NJBBA would not have
backed this effort without assurance that vehicle access on the
beachfront that abuts the property would be allowed to continue. Bob
Lick got assurance from Senator Case that, since the beach was state
owned and not part of the Wilderness, vehicle beach access would not be
jeopardized, and mobile surf fishermen continued to use the beach after
wilderness designation, just as before the wilderness designation.
Rep. Saxton in July 1990 helped negotiate a written agreement
entitled ``Public Use Management for Holgate Unit'' which permits the
operation of over-the-sand vehicles (OSV) in the Holgate Unit of the
Brigantine Wilderness Area. This written agreement, submitted by the
(then) Edwin B. Forsythe Refuge Manager, and approved by the Regional
Director for Refuges, is in direct conflict with the Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) proposed in July 2000 by the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The 1990 agreement specifies the tidelands will be open to OSVs
from September 1 through March 31, and will be closed to all public use
including boat landings from April 1 through August 31 to protect
piping plovers and their habitat. During the September 1 through March
31 period, OSVs may utilize the tidelands below the mean high water
line. In order to minimize the distance of travel on the loose or dry
sand above the mean high tide, the OSVs shall be parked within 30 feet
of the water edge at high tide and generally park perpendicular to the
water edge.
Endangered piping plovers are not an issue in 2001. Surf fishermen
agreed to the closure at Holgate in 1990 to protect the endangered
piping plover based on the FWS allowing the continued access for OSVs
to the end of Holgate Peninsula. It is unfair and unsustainable for the
FWS, after signing this written agreement, to propose to discontinue
this previously established public use. In eleven years, the fishermen
have stayed out of Holgate from April 1 through August 31 in compliance
with this agreement. The piping plover nesting pairs have greatly
increased and there has been no environmental damage to the wilderness
area.
The Department of the Interior utilized its discretionary authority
for 28 years to permit vehicles in Holgate because such uses were
established prior to the date the wilderness area was designated by Act
of Congress. It is outrageous that prior public uses at Holgate have
been proposed to be terminated without consideration to this agreement.
We have separately communicated with the Department of the Interior and
explained that the law and the facts enable and obligate FWS to
continue traditional beach buggy at Holgate. A copy of our letter to
Secretary Gale Norton is attached.
H.R. 896 would solve this problem by revising the boundaries of
Holgate to provide a narrow transition zone between the mean high tide
line and the wilderness boundaries to permit vehicles to safely access
and park on the beach without inadvertently entering the wilderness
area. This bill would continue to allow access by vehicles into
Holgate, as has been the case for nearly 60 years, without negatively
impacting the environment. The public is not permitted in the
wilderness land only on the state owned beach. This applies to walkers
as well. Beach buggy users are happy to share this resource with any
other user groups.
H.R. 896 would provide a 30 foot buffer zone along the state owned
beach between the ocean and the FWS property so vehicles can safely
have ingress and egress during periods of abnormally high tides.
Beachfront by nature comes and goes. It is a complex issue. A 30 foot
right of way above wet water is not unreasonable and would still be
legal within the Wilderness Act. Section 5 (a) mandates access through
wilderness to privately held property. Mobile sport fishermen are
permitted incidental contact with wilderness property to safely access
other parts of state owned Holgate beach during periods of moon tides
coupled with east winds where the beach may be constricted. When the
beach is constricted on the front, it is coincidentally expanded on the
back side. The refuge manager at Holgate immediately claims this
``found'' land as wilderness property, regardless of any mean tide
averages while attempting to claim temporarily eroded beach to an
imaginary previous line in the ocean.
In, addition, FWS Wilderness Preservation and management and
Regulations (50CFR35.5) specifies: (b) ``The Director may permit the
use of motorized equipment at places within a wilderness where such
uses were established prior to the date the wilderness was designated
by a Act of Congress.''
The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 ensures that priority public
uses receive enhanced attention in planning and management within the
Refuge System. Somehow the refuge manager at Holgate has interpreted
this as carte blanche to ban vehicles from the state owned property
that abuts the wilderness.
In 1999, when the refuge manager first proposed his new ban on
vehicles, the reason given was because the public could never get a
true wilderness experience with vehicles on the state owned beach. The
walking public is also prohibited on the Federal wilderness and must
view from the state owned beach as well. In 1973 when NJBBA and the NJ
Sierra Club argued for inclusion of Holgate into the Wilderness Act, we
had to overcome the objections of E. U. Curtis Bohlen, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Department of the Interior,
who was adamant that Holgate did not qualify because, ironically, the
public could never get a true wilderness experience there. When asked
why he is suddenly asking for a mobile sport fishing ban after nearly
60 years of established use, 28 since wilderness designation, the
refuge manager said, ``Because the law gives me the authority to do so.
Look, we are holding a public hearing because we are required to get
public input, but the final decision rests with us. We already have the
Wilderness Act. It's clear on not allowing vehicles on the refuge and
on what a wilderness experience should be. I really think that's all we
need.'' (New York Times, June 20, 1999). In 2000, with public support
dwindling from this demonstrated disdain of the public hearing process,
the argument changed to ``a violation of the Wilderness Act''. Public
support has since all but disappeared.
The mismanagement of the Forsythe Refuge damages the public
impression of the entire refuge system and has put FWS as head of the
list of most despised Federal agencies in New Jersey, a feat that three
years ago, I would have thought impossible. The refuge program uses tax
money to acquire land, and then attempts to keep taxpayers off that
land. It is as if they put up signs that read, ``Public property. No
trespassing.'' Future land acquisition by FWS in New Jersey has been
put in serious jeopardy because of the arrogance and mismanagement at
Holgate. FWS is a bad neighbor.
In 1973 during the hearing for H.R. 5422, which established the
Brigantine Wilderness Area, Assistant Secretary Bohlen testified on
Holgate. ``We did not think that suitable to be recommended as part of
the wilderness.'' he said. ``It is part of the refuge, but it is not
included as part of the area set aside for wilderness.'' It has since
become less suitable to be part of the wilderness. In 1999 when the FWS
first proposed the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, it pictured on the
cover of the ensuing manual what they thought to be a representative
example of what a wilderness should be. That cover photo showed some
sedge land with the skyline of Atlantic City in the background. I
pointed out in my testimony in Stafford Township on July 8, 1999 that
if they took that picture at night, there would be nothing but bright
flashing lights, searchlights, and assorted casino glitter. So much for
the public's ability to have a wilderness experience. Incidentally, in
2000 when the FWS tack switched from the 1999 ploy of ``vehicles on the
beach have a negative impact on the public's ability to enjoy the
wilderness'' to ``a violation of the Wilderness Act'' they had the good
sense to shoot the new manual cover photo in another direction.
The fact remains that now Holgate is part of Federal wilderness.
Any land that can be designated so in the most densely populated state
should be treated with respect, no matter how badly mismanaged. I think
that it is unreasonable to treat wilderness land in New Jersey exactly
the same as treated in Alaska and Rocky Mountain states. In a state
with a population density greater than that of India and Japan, be
thankful for any land that can be designated wilderness. In New Jersey,
if a person goes out for a wilderness experience, and there are 3000
other people there, consider it isolated. In Holgate, there are only 25
vehicles on the three - mile stretch of beach, mostly all sit parked
while the owner is fishing.
An amicable and equitable anti-development solution was worked out
to give Holgate protection, continued recreational use was promised,
and that promise reinforced by the agreement between Rep. Saxton and
FWS in 1990. Now the FWS wants to renege. Please don't let it.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
Let me first say that a document has been referred to by
several in their testimony, including in my opening statement,
which is known as the ``Public Use Management for Holgate
Unit,'' which was the agreement that was signed in 1990. And I
ask unanimous consent that it be included in the record.
Mr. Saxton. And also, a statement from Robert Lick, the
former president of the Beach Buggy Association; Joan Koons'
statement from the Alliance for a Living Ocean; and I have
already asked unanimous consent that Freeholder Mancini's
statement be included in the record.
[The report, ``Public Use Management for Holgate Unit,''
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.016
[The prepared statement of Bob Lick follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2930.005
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Ashe, I am curious about your current
position on this issue, because it doesn't seem to track with
the general attitude that you exhibited during the last year-
and-a-half so, when you would come to my office and then go
away with the understanding that you were going to try to find
a way to help. And on each occasion, you would return to my
office and say, ``Gee, we would really like to help, but the
law is clear. And our position is, therefore, that we can't
help because of the provisions in the Wilderness Act.''
So I think that it seems to me, at least, that the
provisions in my proposed bill are rather modest and take care
of your problem and permit you a way to help. And yet, you
oppose it. I find that very curious, because for the last year-
and-a-half or 2 years, you say you have been trying to help,
and this is a very modest way to solve your dilemma of not
being able to do so.
Why would you, therefore, oppose this bill, if all along
you have wanted to help?
Mr. Ashe. Mr. Saxton, you are a good friend. And when a
good friend asks for help, I try to help him.
And so, as I said, you know, we went back on numerous
occasions to try to see if, within the context of the law, we
could help you. And unfortunately, the answers were
consistently no.
And a number of the panelists here talked about public
trust. And we have a public trust. And our first trust is to
implement the law of the United States. The Congress has
enacted a law, designating the Holgate Unit of the Edwin B.
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness.
And we are bound by our trust to the America people to
implement the law. The law is very clear on this point, that
the use of motorized vehicles within a wilderness is
prohibited.
And so, it is our duty, pursuant to our trust, to uphold
the law.
And it certainly is Congress's prerogative to adjust
boundaries of wilderness, but Congress in its consideration
determined that there was wilderness value at Holgate that was
worthy of protection. And it is now our charge to ensure that
that wilderness value is maintained.
And allowing vehicle use at the Holgate Unit of the
Brigantine Wilderness does impact wilderness value. This is not
about piping plovers. This is not about biological or
ecological integrity. This is about wilderness value. And the
use of motorized vehicles within that wilderness area does
adversely impact wilderness values.
And so that is why we are not supporting your bill,
Congressman, because it will have the effect of eroding that
trust, which Congress handed off to us 26 years ago when they
designated this area as wilderness.
Mr. Saxton. Well, I worry about trust as well. And I
understand what you have just said to me.
When I gave my opening statement, I mentioned that the
Forsythe refuge is rather unique because of its noncontiguous
nature and the fact that it touches the lives of many people,
maybe most people, maybe even all the people of Ocean County.
And there is a trust that we owe to those residents
specifically. And in this case, last year, I think I pointed
out, that there were 716 permits issued. And I am just going to
guess that maybe during the fishing season, maybe there are 10
people who are associated with each over-the-sand vehicle that
fish. So perhaps there are as many as 7,000 individuals, 7,000
families--10 times 700, for those of you who are looking
puzzled--7,000 individuals, which translates into 7,000
families, which translates into 7,000 neighborhoods, who think
the trust is being broken.
How am I going to come back here and advocate for more
money for more expansion of the refuge with 7,000 families in
7,000 neighborhoods thinking that you have created what to
those 7,000 people is a terrible misdeed?
How can I come back and advocate for this refuge and the
management and the program and fixing the backlog, the
maintenance backlog, and all the things that I have done over
these years? How can I continue those activities with my
constituency thinking they have been mistreated this way?
I guess that is a rhetorical question. There is probably no
answer.
Mr. Ashe. It is a difficult issue, Congressman, which is
why, in the beginning of my statement, I said, you know, it
wasn't a pleasant duty on my part.
I know that it is a difficult issue for you, as it is a
difficult issue for us. I guess, on balance, sometimes in the
course of a friendship, you have to look friends in the eye and
tell them that you can't do what they want you to do. And that
is not a pleasant duty.
And I know, from the standpoint of a Member of Congress,
sometimes you have look in the eyes of your constituents and
tell them that maybe their government is not doing something
that they appreciate.
I do believe that, as a whole, the Edwin B. Forsythe
National Wildlife Refuge is a tremendous asset to the people of
New Jersey and the people of the United States, which doesn't
mean that we will make all the people happy all the time. And
that is a difficult balance.
And our manager, Steve Atzert, is in a difficult position.
He does have a trust. He does have an obligation to safeguard
the wilderness value at that refuge. And he is trying to do his
job.
And realize that is making some people angry there. And
that happens from time to time. But I believe, on balance, the
Forsythe refuge and the Holgate Unit are tremendous assets to
the people of New Jersey.
And I think hopefully we can help them to realize that.
Mr. Saxton. Let me ask one more question, and then we will
turn to Mr. Underwood.
You mentioned the devaluation of wilderness area, which to
me means that there must be some environmental reasons that
would cause you say that or some environmental degradation that
is done by the fishermen. Can you somehow quantify that for me,
because I have not seen it?
Mr. Ashe. I think it is very difficult to quantify, Mr.
Chairman, because wilderness is not a quantifiable impact.
If you look at the definition of wilderness in the
Wilderness Act, it talks about areas where the Earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where the imprint of
man's work is substantially unnoticeable, that provide
opportunities for solitude in a primitive and unconfined type
of recreation.
Those are clearly subjective values. But one thing that the
law does tell us very clearly is that the presence of motorized
vehicles is a violation of the concept of wilderness.
And so when Congress told us that this area should be
included in the national wilderness preservation system, and
did not accept vehicles, they were telling us how to manage
that area.
And I will agree with you: Our management has been such
that we have allowed this activity to go on over time. That is
incontrovertible.
But it is also equally incontrovertible that it is not
supportable within the context of the law.
Mr. Saxton. So I take it from your statement that there is
somehow an undefinable degradation.
I mean, you didn't mention that the fishermen throw garbage
around. You didn't mention that they are having bonfires, which
they start with kerosene, on the beach. You didn't mention that
there is continuing damage to the piping plovers.
You didn't mention anything specific. You just said that
there is a--maybe you have a feeling that the area is not quite
as peaceful or something because there are motorized vehicles
going out the beach.
Is that a fair characterization? You didn't point to one
specific problem environmentally.
Mr. Ashe. Wilderness value is a subjective value. As I
said: ``A place where the Earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man.'' That is a subjective value.
It is not that you can't measure it or that you can't see
it. You can. And, again, in general terms, the four land-
managing agencies who manage wilderness, generally, mechanized
equipment represents a deterioration of wilderness value and
are not allowed within wilderness areas.
And so, that is kind of a consistent theme in wilderness
management. And, again, motorized vehicles, the presence of
motorized vehicles itself, is antithetical to the concept of
wilderness and the solitude that wilderness is supposed
represent. That is why Congress included that prohibition in
the law.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And before I begin, I would also to ask unanimous consent
to submit a statement by Dr. Leatherman of the Laboratory for
Coastal Research.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leatherman follows:]
June 6, 2001
Mr. Kevin Frank
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife & Oceans
U.S. House of Representatives
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Frank:
This letter is in response to H.R. 896, a bill introduced by
Congressman Jim Saxton of New Jersey. I have conducted the most the
most extensive research on the impacts of off-road vehicles on barrier
beaches in the United States (see enclosed 44 page resume). I am also
enclosing a copy of the ``Barrier Island Handbook'' that chronicles the
impact of motorized vehicles on beaches and dunes.
The southern end of Long Beach Island, New Jersey has been
designated as a Wilderness Area. As such any vehicular activity in this
area is incongruent with the concept of a wilderness area. Therefore, I
believe that ORVs should certainly be banned in this area as a matter
of principle.
Please feel free to give me a call at 305-348-6304 if I can provide
additional information.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Stephen P. Leatherman, Ph.D.
Professor and Director
Florida International University
Laboratory for Coastal Research
Mr. Underwood. I find the discussion on the intrinsic value
of wilderness versus trying to quantify or perhaps determine
the science of environmental degradation or the effect of off-
road vehicles or fishermen on this particular piece of
property.
Yet, there is something very specific in the laws, is there
not, Mr. Ashe, in terms of motorized vehicles?
Given that, and your admission that motorized vehicles had
been allowed for the time that this has been designated a
wilderness area, it seems very difficult to deal with the issue
of trust. I mean, I don't know whether trust itself is
intangible and whether we can measure that or not. But I would
venture to say that if we were going measure trust on the basis
of past behavior, it has been a little erratic on the part of
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Ashe. I guess I would say it hasn't been erratic. I
mean, we have been allowing these uses to continue, and have
been essentially turning a blind eye to the fact that the uses
were in violation of the Wilderness Act.
As the Congressman knows, you know, in some respects, we
could take the easy way out and I could tell him, ``Well, we
will just continue to allow it,'' which would just open the
door for somebody to come in and challenge us under the
Wilderness Act.
And so, we are developing a comprehensive plan that lays
out a 15-year blueprint for the operation of this refuge, and
we would be putting that whole blueprint at risk from a legal
standpoint, and certainly that provision of the comprehensive
plan.
Mr. Underwood. Is it--
Mr. Ashe. We have been consistently delinquent in our
responsibility to enforce the Wilderness Act.
Mr. Underwood. Consistently delinquent. Okay.
To your knowledge, Mr. Ashe, is there any other wilderness
area where motorized vehicles are allowed, where you have also
turned a blind eye?
Mr. Ashe. There are none that I am aware of, Congressman.
There are wilderness areas where Congress has made
exception in the establishment of the wilderness area to
cherrystem, as they say, roads, to take roads or improve trails
out of wilderness areas. There are cases in the refuge system,
like Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge where, in the
establishment of the wilderness area, Congress specifically
allowed certain kinds of activity that would overwise not be
allowed.
In the case of Okefenokee, it is motor boat use. They
specifically allowed for the use of motor boats within the
wilderness area.
But, again, which to me points out one of the ironies in
this situation: Congress knows how to do that, and in the case
of Holgate, they did not. They left the prohibition against
motorized vehicles intact without providing that exception, as
they have done in many other cases.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. McDowell, to your knowledge, is there
any environmental degradation that is occurring as a result of
the activities of off-road vehicles?
Mr. McDowell. In this particular location, no. And I
queried our biologists, who are trying to recover the piping
plover, working closely with the Service, and they say there
has been no impact on these birds and other state endangered
and threatened species in the area.
Basically, when the tide is a high tide, it erases all the
evidence--tracks, et cetera--of the fishermen, so it is
returned to wilderness, so to speak.
So I know of no environmental impact, impacts on wildlife.
Mr. Underwood. Has there been any assessment, specific
assessment, relative to off-road vehicles activity in other
parts of New Jersey?
Mr. McDowell. Yes, on Brigantine Island, we have done that
assessment. And because of the assessment, there is a seasonal
prohibition and management strategy in there to allow vehicles
under certain guidance and closure.
So, yes, we have seen impacts on endangered species, beach
nesters. I might point also that swimmers have impacts on some
of these species also. So it is a management issue all over the
State of New Jersey.
The easiest thing to say is, ``No.'' The most difficult
thing to say is, ``Yes, but we're going to do it this way.''
Mr. Underwood. I just want to understand, in the rank order
of priorities here, so that I understand the full flavor your
testimony, not in contrast to Freeholder Kelly, but just to
understand it.
Mr. McDowell. Sure.
Mr. Underwood. If there were evidence of environmental
degradation, would you then oppose the off-road vehicles in the
area, as opposed, you know, that there is some kind of inherent
or preexisting right for fishermen to have access to the area?
Mr. McDowell. We would probably be the first agency to
raise that issue, if it was environmental impacts that affected
fish and wildlife, certainly. That is our legal responsibility,
too.
I think there is one impact nobody is talking about here.
You are talking about public trust as an issue. We are very
busily, in the State of New Jersey, trying to buy up as much
open space as we possibly can. Former Governor Whitman had the
Open Space initiative passed. We are spending over $100 million
a year, buying open space, getting conservation easements on
open space. And the public is behind us 100 percent.
I am one of the people that signs off on the refuge
purchases. I think the refuge gaining more land in New Jersey
is a good thing--not only this refuge, but the other four
refuges. And we cooperate with the Service completely.
But when you do this kind of thing, in terms of public
trust, then it affects all the other agencies that are trying
to protect open space, because the public wants to know: Why
are you doing this? What are going to do? Are you going to keep
me out of here?
Mr. Underwood. Is there any law in the State of New Jersey
about the intrinsic value of wilderness--
Mr. McDowell. Not that I know of.
Mr. Underwood. --that would be comparable to--
Mr. McDowell. We do have a natural area system and certain
management activities, especially, are regulated there in these
natural areas.
And so, we understand the concept. But we don't have a
Wilderness Act in the State of New Jersey.
There is one other wilderness area in a refuge in the Great
Swamp, I believe. It is not very large. And we supported that.
Mr. Underwood. Just one last question.
Mr. Savadove, I know you spoke to the issue of the
intrinsic value of an area of wilderness which is unaffected by
human behavior or the intrusion of man.
In your experience, in terms of your own journalistic
background, are there a number people who express the same
things? Is this a counterbalancing theme to fishermen who want
to have access to this area?
Mr. Savadove. I think I do represent--
Mr. Underwood. Or is it just, you know, a handful of poets?
[Laughter.]
I want to know. I don't want to give the Chairman a free
ride here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Savadove. Well, I am the only one who came down, but I
can assure you, I represent, I suppose, a great number of
people.
I was going to ask if I could address Mr. Saxton's comment
about his constituency and the 7,000 families and
neighborhoods. There is, of course, another constituency, which
is perhaps certainly the silent one on matters like this, who
support more purchases of wild areas and we have noticed--and
have voted, actually, with their pocketbooks, by voting for
money to be put aside from their taxes in order to buy more
areas.
And they, I assure you, are for keeping New Jersey, the
part of New Jersey that is still keepable, as it was.
Mr. Underwood. Keep New Jersey wet and wild.
[Laughter.]
Okay. Thank you.
I have a few other questions I would like to enter for the
record.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Saxton. There are two local environmental
organizations. One is known as Alliance for a Living Ocean. We
have entered testimony that they support the effort to maintain
fishing activity on Holgate and my bill. And there is another
organization called Clean Ocean Action, who has indicated that
they have no objection and no interest in this proposal.
So the folks who are the most active in our area, relative
to these issues, are not opposed and, in at least one case, in
favor of this legislation.
Mr. DeLeonard, based on your legal analysis, do you believe
there is a way for the Administration, the Bush Administration,
to solve the Holgate problem administratively?
Mr. DeLeonard. I believe so, if they stick to what they say
they are going to do. In the past, it appears the promises are
made only to be broken by the next administration.
I think, yes, if they just make administrative decision and
stick by it, that is equitable to everyone involved. We don't
have to even pass a law, if that was to happen.
Mr. Saxton. You have an attorney by the name of Bill Horn,
who is with you today, right?
Mr. DeLeonard. Yes, that is true.
Mr. Saxton. And I am sure that you have seen the letter
that Mr. Horn wrote to the honorable Gale Norton, Secretary of
Department of Interior.
Mr. DeLeonard. True.
Mr. Saxton. I would like to, if you all bear with me for a
minute, just read--this is a long letter; I won't read the
whole thing. This is about an eight- or nine-page letter.
But I would like to reference one page. Mr. Horn writes:
``The Wilderness Act provides that there shall be no use of
motorized vehicles in designated wilderness areas. However, the
Act expressly provides where state or privately owned land is
surrounded by wilderness access of such lands will assured.''
``In applying this provision, the courts have repeatedly
upheld not only that the property owners' right of access but
their right of adequate access''--that is a new term, adequate
access, as defined by the courts.
The courts held that, in a certain case, which is
referenced here, Nelson v. the United States, the courts held
that ``because the road over which property owners had access
would not provide adequate access to all portions of their
land, including the land on which they wanted to develop cabins
for rental, the U.S. improperly denied a permit to access their
property by a different road.''
In a different case, the State of Utah v. Andrus, the court
held that the ``state must be given access to school grand land
within the wilderness such that is necessary for the state's
reasonable enjoyment of the lands.''
This draft CCP ``mistakenly and repeatedly intones that the
Wilderness Act requires the closure of Holgate Beach to
motorized vehicles. Such an interpretation of the Wilderness
Act completely disregards its clear language exempting state-
owned land within the wilderness area. The statute and judicial
interpretation thereof mandates that states be permitted not
just access but reasonable access to their lands.''
``The State of New Jersey owns and has jurisdiction over
the land below the mean high-tide mark, not the Fish and
Wildlife Service. That land is not governed by the Wilderness
Act. Additionally, the state land is within or is surrounded by
the refuge.''
``Accordingly, the Department and the Fish and Wildlife
Service must provide the state and its users with reasonable
access to its property.''
I think that is a fairly clear interpretation, as far as I
can see, of the situation.
And as a matter of fact, Mr. Ashe, is this your
understanding, that the courts have ruled, at least in these
two cases, with regard to the reasonable access language?
Mr. Ashe. I know, Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, you
said in areas where state or private land is surrounded by
wilderness, and I know in the context of in-holdings within
wilderness, much as the same as when we have an in-holding
within an nonwilderness refuge, that we have a responsibility
to provide in-holders with reasonable access.
Again, I imagine the question in this case is clearly kind
of what would be reasonable.
Although, again, our wilderness doesn't surround the
state--
Mr. Saxton. At high tide it does.
Mr. Ashe. Well, there is still water area outside of the
wilderness area by which people can access the tidelands.
Access by boat is a reasonable form of access.
And as we have said, we continue to maintain that people
can access the tidelands and the wilderness by boat.
Mr. Saxton. Do you really think a court would rule that
way? I mean, do you think the court will rule that way? I
should ask you that way.
Mr. Ashe. I wouldn't want to predict what a court would do.
Mr. Saxton. Well, I think it's fairly clear, based on the
case law that is cited in this letter, that there have been
good indications that the court would come down on the other
side from you.
Let me ask another question on this regulation business.
The regulation that was passed in 1971 pursuant to the
Wilderness Act: The director may permit--I read this language
before; I will just do it quickly--subject to restrictions he
deems desirable, the landing of aircraft and the use of
motorized equipment at places within the wilderness.
Now, this is an official part of the regulations that were
passed by the Department of Interior, is it not?
Mr. Ashe. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. And so the current regime has chosen to
disregard this provision, saying that, in your opinion, it is
illegal.
Has a judge ruled on this? Has this been challenged in
court? Or has there been any reason for you to draw that
conclusion based on any court action? Or did you just draw that
conclusion because it was convenient to meet the goal that you
seem intent on meeting?
Mr. Ashe. Neither. To my knowledge, there has been no court
ruling on this portion of our regulation.
But, again, Mr. Chairman, when Congress passes a law, it is
my job to take the law seriously and literally. And when I look
at the law and the law says that we may allow the use of
aircraft or motor boats where those uses were preexisting,
those words are very specific.
And the Service's regulation is broader than the law
allows. The Service's regulation says motorized equipment.
I don't think there is any question--there is no question
in my mind--that the Service's regulation has overstepped the
boundary of the law in that case.
And, again, when I asked our solicitors for advice, they
gave me unambiguous advice. They instructed me not to take any
action based upon that regulation, because they think that
regulation oversteps the authority that we are provided in the
law.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. DeLeonard, let me move back to another
question relative to any impact that you know of that would be
negative in terms of the environment from fishermen's
activities, either with or without the use of vehicles in the
areas. Is there anything that we should know about?
Mr. DeLeonard. No. Actually, it was alluded to they don't
want to walk through oil on the beach. I am from the shore, I
have been there all my life, I have never seen any drop of any
oil on a beach from a mobile sport-fishing vehicle.
The occasional tire tracks, which come and go with the
wind. In fact, it has been proven in a study in Fire Island
that tire tracking on the beach is actually beneficial to the
beach in that it breaks up the salt berm that builds up on the
beach and allows for wind action to cause natural dune
formation.
Mr. Saxton. As a matter of fact, that was part of the
testimony early in this process, wasn't it? Not today, but
previously.
Ms. Cobb from the--
Mr. DeLeonard. Yes, that was in the 1973 testimony.
Mr. Saxton. From the Sierra Club.
Mr. DeLeonard. That is that analysis in there.
Mr Saxton. Recent reports, she says here, actually show
that tracking of heavy vehicles, such as beach buggies, can be
beneficial during the winter months. They break up the heavy
salt crusts that seem to form during the winter, and this
permits the sand to blow freely once more and to form dunes.
Mr. DeLeonard. So, actually, it has been proven that there
is a benefit to tracking on the beach. And like I say, I have
been there all my life, and I have yet to see a drop of oil on
the beach.
As far as trash is concerned, the fishermen that fish in
beach buggies pick up trash on the beach. They don't leave
trash. They see it, they grab it. You know, trash bags are
required equipment, and we keep the beach clean.
We are pretty good at policing ourselves. We were
conservationists before the practice became fashionable. We
fish and we give the fish back. We give back to that beach more
than we take.
Like I say, we are the number one in volunteer hours in the
State of New Jersey, New Jersey Beach Buggy Association. And
not all people that access the beach in a vehicle are New
Jersey Beach Buggy Association, but that is their choice. I
mean, membership is not a requirement.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Savadove, you mentioned in your testimony
that there would be--I don't want to put words in your mouth or
words in your testimony--but that there was some kind of
environmental degradation as a result of the use of motorized
vehicles. Can you be more specific and tell us what you refer
to, in specific terms?
Mr. Savadove. It is not the specific harming the birds or
leaving tire tracks, although that is part of it.
It is more of what Mr. Ashe referred to as the idea of just
having a place where you can go that is--I think his word is
wonderful--untrammeled by us, by man. There are plenty of
instances--I walk that area a lot, and I breathe the fumes. So
I have seen--
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Kelly, I know you know the area very well.
Have you ever seen examples of environmental degradation that
would be worrisome?
Mr. Kelly. No, I really haven't, Congressman. And to hear
that we ought to let nobody go there, so that when you go
there, it is nice, doesn't make sense to me.
What we want to do is continue to have this area managed.
And when you want to talk about environmental degradation, to
me that means building on every square foot. And look at the
rest of Long Beach Island.
Earlier in your statement, you talked about, does the
Forsythe refuge impact most of the residents of Ocean County or
all of the residents of Ocean County? And I submit that it
impacts every person who lives in Ocean County. It impacts them
in different ways, but one way is economically.
Long Beach Island is among the highest price real estate in
Ocean County. In fact, pays a good percentage of the county tax
bill. This part of the island is paying no taxes. We support
that. We want that.
Ocean County, in fact, passed a question by two out of
three voters to provide more open space. It get backs to: What
is open space?
This is truly open space. I have a color photo of the rest
of Long Beach Island. Look at every lot that is built. When you
buy property on Long Beach Island now, you pay $.5 million and
tear the house down to build a new house because there is no
more property.
This portion of Long Beach Island is protected and ought to
be. The Board of Chosen Freeholders and the people of Ocean
County support it in that way. It ought to managed.
But it ought to be managed consistently, like it has since
1973. In 1973, this area became part of the Forsythe refuge,
part of the wilderness refuge. Since 1973, there has been no
environmental degradation. There has been no testimony today
from anyone that it has been seen.
In fact, we heard from the sportsman who said what I said
earlier: They are environmentalists. They are protecting the
area.
We are simply allowing access to people who are paying the
bill to preserve that future generations, and allowing them the
right to fish there.
That doesn't seem to be a very horrible request.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. McDowell, there is another area known as Island Beach
State Park, which is under the auspices of the state and beach
buggies are permitted there. Is that right? And if that is
right, has there been any environmental problem that you can
point to on Island Beach State Park?
Mr. McDowell. No, because, first of all, everybody gets a
permit to go on there, and the Beach Buggy Association has been
very supportive of Island Beach State Park, so I know of no
environmental impacts due to beach buggy use at Island Beach
State Park.
It is interesting that in October, the first weekend in
October, we have the governor's surf fishing tournament there,
and there are beach buggies and families and all kinds of
things going on on the beach. And a couple days later, you go
back, you can't even tell they were there.
Mr. Saxton. If I were to say that activities involving
fishing, fishermen, and beach buggies, in an environmental
sense, are fairly benign--
Mr. McDowell. Yes. And more than benign. They are the first
people that blow the whistle on a problem out there in the
ocean or the beach or the barrier dunes. They are the sentinels
of environmental quality when it comes to the ocean and the bay
shore, in my experience. And I receive lots of the phone calls.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Ashe, just for the record, if the current
regulations are contrary to law, why hasn't the agency taken
steps to repromulgate the regulations?
Mr. Ashe. Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of looking at
our wilderness policy and evaluating our wilderness policy. And
I think it will be our intent to consider repromulgating that
portion of the regulation. Again, that has been the advice of
our solicitor, to repromulgate that portion of the regulation.
Mr. Saxton. Let me ask you to revisit something with me for
just a moment, and then we will finish up here, because I think
we have just about been over the territory as thoroughly as we
can. But I just want to--Mr. Savadove said that the argument,
in his opinion, that somehow this would set a precedent that
would be followed elsewhere is probably not a worry, but that
it has a great local impact. And he made reference to a
negative local impact in terms of the environment, I believe,
to be fair to his statement.
But it does have a rather significant local impact because
of the uniqueness of this situation, where this activity has
been going on for almost 30 years, while the wilderness area
designation was in place.
So the passage of my bill, which you said earlier you
opposed, which I wish you would review, seems to me to have a
local impact, creating a fairness, creating a consistency in
policy, creating a 30-foot setback of the border of the
wilderness area, setback to the west. That doesn't seem like
something that should be troublesome, to me, if, in fact, Mr.
Savadove is right and it doesn't have great national meaning,
in terms of setting a precedent or something like that, because
of the uniqueness of this situation.
And I wonder if perhaps you could revisit this with the new
administration and see if perhaps a new thought process might
evolve here relative to supporting this bill or one like it.
I originally thought it might be a good idea to have
something that one of our staffers called a transition area,
where it would still be part of the wilderness area, but it
would be transitional in that motorized vehicles could back up
on it, as spelled out in the 1990 agreement.
And then somebody said, ``Well, maybe that is a bad idea
because transition zones are something new. So why don't you
just move the border 30 feet to the west.'' And I said, well,
it makes sense to me. It accomplishes the same thing.
Would you be willing to revisit this with the new
administration and see if there might be some new thought
processes here that might permit the Administration to support
the bill?
Mr. Ashe. I am always willing to explore it, Mr. Chairman,
but, I mean, the position that is developed and represented
here today is the position of the new administration. I mean,
we have, you know, discussed this issue at length, as I know
you have with Secretary Norton--
Mr. Saxton. Oh, but, not at the highest levels.
Mr. Ashe. Higher than Secretary Norton?
Mr. Saxton. Sure.
Mr. Ashe. I think that we certainly can continue to discuss
it, Mr. Chairman.
I guess on the point of precedent, I think that a number of
the statements that have been made, again, about environmental
impact and about whether the context of western wilderness is
rightfully applied in the eastern United States, I think that
wilderness is wilderness. And the law doesn't differentiate
between western wilderness or eastern wilderness.
And so, again, it is our responsibility, when Congress says
that there are important values to protect, wilderness values
to protect, to protect those values and take that seriously,
until and unless Congress removes that protection.
Mr. Saxton. Unfortunately, the buzzers are ringing again.
And I am not going to put you all through the process of
waiting for us to come back.
I think we have been over this pretty well today.
I guess I would just conclude by saying I am convinced, as
I have been over the last couple of years, over the last 10
years in dealing with this issue, that the real issue of
fairness is to permit this historic use to continue; that it
does no environmental damage whatsoever; that there are 500 or
700 families, depending on the given year, that would be
disadvantaged, in their opinion, quite severely and
unnecessarily by the provisions of the CCP.
And I further believe, particularly in the last several
days in looking at the legal aspects and opinions relative to
this case, that ultimately the fishermen are going to win.
It seems to me it would be to everybody's benefit to let
that process happen as expeditiously and as easily as possible,
rather than dragging this out through the courts and all of the
things that are involved in that.
So I am hopeful that we will be able to move this
legislation expeditiously. And I am hopeful that we will be
able to do it with the help and support of the new
administration.
Thank you all for coming here today.
Dan, I look forward to working with you as we move forward
on this and other issues.
And I thank my friends from New Jersey for traveling here
to Washington today to share their points of view with us.
Thank you, and we will adjourn for the day. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-