Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much. Mr. Keith? Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very concerned about the interrelationship of recreational aspects with those of conservation. I know in many estuaries which would be normal breeding grounds for wild fowl, there is a tremendous amount of water activity. I think that would have an adverse effect upon the duck population and other kinds of wildlife. Do you take any cognizance of this in the lands over which you have jurisdiction? Mr. HOFE. This would more properly be answered by those agencies within Interior that actually administer the particular areas. To my knowledge however the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife which would have the greatest degree of interest in wetlands and wildlife refuges, is taking what measures it can to reduce the incidence of boats intruding upon the wildlife preserves. There are some refuges which, of course, by their vary nature are just that—refuges from storms used by the water fowl only in that event. These areas have a heavy boat traffic at other times. The Bureau does try to mitigate the adverse impact of boats on wildlife, but at the same time recognizes the necessity of allowing these waters to be open to pleasure craft. Mr. CLARK. Yes. Mr. KEITH. In a national seashore such as Cape Cod, the legislation specifies that it is the desire of Congress to preserve it for posterity and it is intended to emphasize the conservational aspects. I think for administration purposes it comes under your Department. Mr. CLARK. It does. Mr. HOFE. It comes under the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior. Mr. KEITH. Is that broken down as to recreation versus conservation? Mr. HOFE. My thought would be that it is. Again, this is another agency within our Department. I would be pleased to supply a clarification for the record, if you so desire, from the National Park Service. You are talking of an area that I know you are familiar with and I am, too. I was very pleased to see the seashore established. Mr. KEITH. But insofar as you know there is not a directive from a higher echelon within the Bureau, advising you as to the kinds of recreational boating activity that can and cannot take place depending upon the time of the year and possible breeding seasons? Mr. HOFE. With regard to Cape Cod? Mr. KEITH. I don't know what these 7 million acres are, but I would assume there would be more than just Cape Cod. I would think that perhaps part of the inland waterway comes under your jurisdiction or part of the Everglades. At certain times of the year on the inland waterways and in the Everglades, ducks are nesting and it might be helpful if there were some recognition of this in the opening of those areas to the boating public. Mr. HOFE. There is Mr. Congressman. There is no overall Departmental directive but I know that the various agencies within the Department prohibit boating activity in wildlife areas during nesting season, and even to the extent of keeping people on foot away from nesting areas. Mr. KEITH. I have spent many summers on the water in areas where there was a lot of wildlife nesting in years gone by, but today there is no longer any seclusion for the wildlife. They can be disrupted by a kid on an outboard, skirting in and out of these estuarine aras at 40 miles an hour, with very little regulation at all. If you do have jurisdiction it might be helpful if some attention were given to the problem. Mr. HOFE. I agree, Mr. Congressman. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Watkins. Mr. WATKINS. I have no questions. Mr. CLARK. Counsel would like to ask a question. Mr. CORRADO. Mr. Hofe, this has to do with the report the Interior Department sent up that set out suggested amendments. There is one amendment that, I would like to raise specifically because I think it would be useful to get in the record and because it relates to what Mr. Watkins was talking about. Your department suggested putting a provision in the bill relating to this sanitation equipment. It would be just a short provision, but it would allow for conforming this recreational boat safety bill to the section b H.R. 4148 which would require the installation of sanitation devices on vessels. The committee will have to decide about this but I wonder about the efficacy of it for two reasons. First, I wonder whether it is necessary because such devices won't be required on existing vessels for 5 years. Second, I think section 5(b) (2) leaves the door open. There is a provision at the end of 5(b) (2) that provides that although the section deals with safety, and that is another point, this is a safety bill and not really a pollution bill, there is a little room for partial compliance and conformance when the Secretary considers it appropriate due to the degree of hazard involved. Could you comment on this a little bit for us? Mr. HOFE. The Department's suggestion to which you alluded was to add a paragraph (3) to subsection 5 (b) reading that regulations issued under that section shall be consistent with such other laws and regulations as may be applicable to boats and associated equipment including, but not limited to, laws governing the installation and maintenance of sanitation equipment. Our thought in this regard is just not to close the door, and not necessarily to expand the provisions of this bill, but to make certain that this bill and H.R. 4148, or whatever results from the conference committee, could be applied in tandem, let us say. There should be no misunderstanding that this section here would prohibit implementing policies under H.R. 4148 to reduce pollution in the Nation's waterways by imposing some standards dealing with that problem. That was the department's thought in making this suggestion. Mr. CORRADO. I'm sure the committee will consider your suggestion, certainly it is very important. Also, it was interesting to see that you picked up an apparent inconsistency between sections 12(d) and 34 (c). Yesterday I commented a little bit about this apparent inconsistency and I thought it was quite important that the word "grossly" was in section in 34 (c) and that it was left out of section 12(d). I hope that when the committee meets in executive session to go over the bill, it will amend it so both sections are either one way or the other, that is, that they will be consistent as to gross negligence or simple negligence. Mr. HOFE. We pointed out the inconsistency and the Department reported in a certain manner, but basically it is the need to solve the problem in which you have a crime defined in section 12(d) with no penalty and then in the penalty section the crime is defined differently from 12(d). Mr. CORRADO. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much, Doug, for coming in this morning and appearing before us. Mr. HOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLARK. The next meeting will be called subject to the Chair. The hearings will continue in the very near future. The meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned subject to call of the Chair.) RECREATIONAL BOAT SAFETY THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD, COAST AND Staten Island, N.Y. The subcommittee met at 9:10 p.m., pursuant to notice, in the auditorium, Staten Island Community College, Staten Island, N.Y., Hon. Frank M. Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. CLARK. The committee will please come to order. Chairman Garmatz, from Maryland, and I introduced this bill, H.R. 15041, on December 2, 1969, and it is the latest in a series of bills dealing with legislation to provide a coordinated national safety program to reduce boating accidents. There are now between 8 and 9 million small boats in the United States and this number is increasing at the fantastic rate of about 4.000 a week. The statistics for 1969 indicate that there were 1,350 fatalities last year resulting from boating accidents and that there was approximately $6.37 million in property damage. We are convinced that this is a situation which requires attention. H.R. 15041 would establish safety standards applicable to boats. and associated equipment and would regulate the use of safety equipment on board boats. It would authorize the Secretary of Transportation under certain conditions to approve more comprehensive State boating safety programs and to make grant-in-aid to encourage State participation and to assist in the program development and implementation. To this end, there is a recommended authorization of appropriations of $5 million a year for 5 fiscal years beginning in 1972 for a grant-in-aid program. In addition, the bill would establish a Boating Safety Advisory Board or Council. The subcommittee held hearings on this important legislation on March 23 and 24 of this year when we heard congressional and governmental witnesses. Beginning now, it is our intention over the next month or so to have hearings in various boating centers of the United States where all segments of the industry can be heard and in which individuals, through their representatives, can express their views with respect to the need for changes in the boating act not only to produce greater safety but greater convenience for the recreational boat owners. This is why we are here tonight in Staten Island. At this time, I would like to defer some of my comments and introduce your friend and my good friend and colleague, Congressman John Murphy, the Representative of the 16th District, who is now in his fourth term and who serves on the Interstate and Foreign Com |