of meaningful environment, land-use, and transportation studies essential to intelligent decisions with regard to such a project as the sound crossing.

FOUR STUDIES NECESSARY BEFORE BUILDING A BRIDGE

In September 1967, the first two reports were released. One of them is by Adams, Howard & Opperman, planning consultants of Cambridge, Mass., and it concludes that a decision regarding the Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge "Cannot be reached without considering many factors not yet studied." These planning experts say four types of studies are necessary: (a) Functional effectiveness. Will it serve projected traffic and fit into a total system? (b) Financial feasibility. For a toll bridge, will it pay for itself? (c) Developmental impact. How will such a bridge affect location of economic growth, population trends, openspace and natural resources? and (d) Local impact. How will the bridge and the approach roads affect the communities in which they are built?

There is a statement in the Adams, Howard & Opperman report, Mr. Chairman, which goes to the core of the problem. It says, and we quote:

The westerly basin of the Sound is now functioning as a recreational lake. . An Oyster Bay-Rye crossing would cut across the heart of this heavily-used lake, drastically diminishing the recreational utility.

Mr. Chairman, 20 million people use Long Island Sound as a recreational haven, the last of the great water playgrounds in this area of the country. We submit that while Mr. Moses and Mr. Rockefeller have their eyes fixed on some dubious accommodation of vehicular traffic, their solution to a traffic problem, if one indeed exists, is to destroy forever a recreational facility that belongs to this and future generations.

At the same time we released a report by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, I think of Falls Church, Va., which raises important questions as to the lack of appropriate studies for Long Island Sound crossings. As a matter of fact, the report in recommending a comprehensive study "structured on the wide range of problems in this undertaking" is a prevision of the very goal of S. 2472.

REPORTS SUBMITTED FOR REFERENCE

At this time, Mr. Chairman, we would like to submit for the record. the full texts of these two reports as well as other reports in the record.

Senator JAVITS. The Chair will rule they may be included by reference. I know you would not wish us to print all the reports. Mr. GRAINGER. We have them here.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.
Mr. GRAINGER. A third report.

Senator JAVITS. It would be received.

Mr. GRAINGER. A third report, the so-called Gravelle report was also prepared at our instigation, and we submit that for the record, calling your attention, to these two statements. The proposed bridge will necessitate major new highway expenditures. It states, for ex

ample, and we quote: "A major connection through the heart of Nassau would surely be necessary ***" Furthermore, it states, the crossing will destroy a section of Long Island Sound unparalleled as a conservation and recreation resource.

NATURAL RESOURCE THREATENED

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government also has more than a passing interest in this great natural resource which by virtue of the 1967 enabling act is under a real and present threat of spoliation.

In a report dated June 14, 1967, prepared by William French, Department of Interior staff specialist, which was reviewed and approved by Merton Radway, acting regional supervisor, refuges, a recommendation was made that the Mill Neck Creek conservation area be acquired by the Department of Interior for the purpose of establishing a national wildlife refuge. Mill Neck Creek, it must be noted, is an inlet of the sound and is embraced by the proposed causeway. The report characterized the area in part as follows:

These properties are of special significance in the protection and management of migratory birds and more importantly of the value in the Bureau's Rare and Endangered Species Program. . . . These associated bay bottoms . . . should also be acquired to provide protection to the bottom and tidal areas essential to perpetuation of the existing ecology of the adjacent marsh and swamp lands. As regards the Oyster Bay -Rye Bridge, the report said:

A proposed extensive bridge to join Oyster Bay, Long Island, New York and Rye, Connecticut could have devastating effects upon this area.

Subsequent to this report, more than 5.000 acres of the wetlands in the area were deeded by the town of Oyster Bay to the Department of Interior as a national wildlife refuge, and this of course will be permanently impaired by the causeway bridge.

On December 27, 1968, just about 18 months ago, Lewis Mumford, one of the great social thinkers of our time, said in a memorandum on the proposed Long Island Sound crossing the following, and we quote:

If the proposed bridge across the Sound is built, all the potential human value of this area will be degraded by interstate traffic, debased by speculative real estate developments and finally destroyed.

He went on to say:

Unfortunately, the highway engineers and traffic experts who have planned this bridge have learned nothing whatever, apparently, from the massive errors they have made during the last 20 years in generating traffic and mal-distributing the population; under Mr. Robert Moses' increasingly blind and inept leadership, they not merely automatically repeat their worst mistakes but see, under some pathological compulsion, to magnify them.

In the same memorandum, Mr. Mumford says:

That misuse of New York's most precious remaining patch of natural landscape would be irretrievable; and it would rob all future generations of a precious heritage, already almost squandered away. . . .

BRIDGE OPPOSED

Mr. Chairman, we should note that the entire delegation from Nassau County to the last session of the State legislature opposed the bridge that Members of the House of Representatives from Westchester and Long Island, including Mr. Wolff and Mr. Reid, both of

different parties, oppose the bridge; that Senator Goodell has expressed to our committee that he, too, is opposed to the bridge, and that dozens of conservation, commuter, and recreational organizations are opposed to the bridge. Yet in the face of this overwhelming public sentiment, the enabling act remains on the books, presenting an ever-brooding threat that the bridge will be built. Governor Rockefeller has temporarily halted activities on the bridge, promising a transit study shortly after election, at the cost of $162,000. Mr. Chairman, we have no faith in this postponement, and we have no faith in a short-term, fragmented transit study. We have said publicly that the Governor intends to build this crossing, and that postponement and promised study have been proferred as a way to mute this issue during the present political campaign.

Our hopes lie with the Federal Government and the Congress of the United States, Mr. Chairman, who apparently have more perception as to what constitutes the greater public interest than the officials of our State government.

Senator JAVITs. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Mayor. Does Mr. Eden wish to add anything?

Mr. EDEN. No, I don't.

Mr. GRAINGER. We do have the reports.

Senator JAVITS. And if you would be kind enough to leave them with the staff of the committee, they will be referred to properly in the record.

I would like to state to you as the other Senator from New York, as you know, I have been visited by delegations, I'm glad I was here this morning to hear you testify to it personally. I'm sure you and the people of your area know that I'm involved with a few other problems in addition to this one, and it will stimulate in me a desire to examine the powers of the Federal Government which you have just stated. Assuming you were right that we do have an independent responsibility, you can be positive we're going to judge it independently with a view toward the Federal Government using its powers especially in view of your deep concern about the way in which the State reviews its powers. Though I might say to you in all candor, it's inconceivable to me that Governor Rockefeller would not have a very good reason for what he may be contemplating. Nonetheless life being what it is, I assure you it will have a very independent look by me, and you have stimulated me toward it. I must apologize for not having the time to have done it before this.

CHAOTIC SITUATION

Representative WOLFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Mr. Grainger and Mr. Eden for their local activities in support of legislation to stop what I consider a great encroachment upon both Long Island and Westchester. We have all worked long and hard, Mr. Chairman, to try to bring some reason into this chaotic situation that would be created as a result of an unwarranted bridge in the area. Basically this would be contributory to exacerbating an already difficult problem that exists here with our traffic arteries being clogged as they are and our land being desecrated as it is. I'm happy that the Westchester shores are following the lead of Long Island in attempting to protect their very birthright.

Mr. GRAINGER. Thank you.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your

appearance.

Our next witness is Carl Mays, executive director of the Hudson River Valley Commission. Will Mr. Mays come forward please; please proceed, Mr. Mays.

STATEMENT OF CARL J. MAYS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUDSON RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION

Mr. MAYS. Mr. Chairman, committee members, my name is Carl J. Mays, I have served in this position since January 1969. I also served the commission as an appointed member from its inception in 1966 to the date of my present position. Prior to my staff association with the commission, I served as the planning director for Orange County, N.Y., for a period of 13 years.

The commission was established in response to widespread public concern over the condition of the environment of the Hudson River Valley. The deterioration of the scenic beauty and natural resources of the river valley, brought about by an expanding population and technological change, was not being prevented by existing specialized agencies at the State or Federal level, or by local governments acting independently of each other. A special study commission appointed by Governor Rockefeller in 1965 underscored the need for a regional solution to the problems of the river valley and recommended the establishment of the present Hudson River Valley Commission.

HUDSON RIVER VALLEY COMMISSION ACT

In 1966 the New York State Legislature enacted the Hudson River Valley Commission Act:

To encourage the preservation, enhancement and development of the scenic, historic, recreational and natural resources of the Hudson River Valley and to encourage the full development of the commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential and other resources which are vital to the continued progress of the Hudson River Valley. In carrying out its purposes, the Commission shall accord careful consideration to, and full opportunity for, the best use and development of all resources of the Valley.

The commission was also mandated to

Provide the leadership in developing a coordinative, comprehensive plan incorporating the best thinking of federal, state and local governmental and private plans. It shall encourage and assist public and private agencies and persons to undertake projects and activities in accordance with the coordinative, comprehensive plan.

The commission is comprised of nine unsalaried members who are appointed by the Governor for 3-year terms. The jurisdiction of the commission covers the entire area within 1 mile of the Hudson River, from its source to the lower tip of Manhattan, plus any lands that are visible within 2 miles of the river shore. This jurisdiction encompasses a land area in excess of 700 square miles, including all or part of 15 counties, 15 cities, 67 towns, and 39 incorporated villages.

FOCUS OF THE COMMISSION

The focus of the commission is as much on the development and use of land as it is on the use of water resources. By means of the comprehensive planning and project review process our aim is to achieve an environment in which both natural and manmade components are sympathetically related. Comprehensive planning delineates longrange land use policies for the river corridor that will suggest a future development pattern. Our objective is a balanced environment, one in which both urban pressures and the need to preserve open space can be accommodated in a form appropriate to our contemporary standard of living.

Our review of proposed projects allows the commission to assess changes in the environment resulting from such proposals and, if serious problems are evident, to propose more suitable solutions. All proposed development within our jurisdiction is subject to commission review, with the exception of residential developments of less than five units, farming activities, ordinary building improvements and minor utility facilities.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

Both public and private developers are required to submit, prior to construction, all information necessary for the commission to determine whether or not the project proposal will have an unreasonably adverse effect on the resources of the Hudson River Valley. Within 30 days of receipt of such data the commission notifies the sponsor that his project will not have an adverse effect on the resources of the valley and he may continue the project, or the sponsor will be notified that his project might have an unreasonably adverse effect on the resources of the valley, and he will be ordered not to continue for an additional 60-day period. If the commission does issue such an order it shall, within this period, further review the project, conduct one or more public hearings near the project site, and report its finding to the sponsor, all public agencies having the power to review or approve the project, and to the public through appropriate news media.

Basic to both the comprehensive planning and project review functions is our concept of the environment as a complex system of interrelated resources. This requires a highly organized approach to the commission's functions. We view the environment in terms of three major components: natural resources, physical design, and societal factors. Our comprehensive planning division is organized into three groups corresponding to these major elements. Each of these divisions has a staff of specialists who can contend with the entire spectrum of environmental concerns. Our staff consists of 55 persons of which 25 are professionally trained representing 13 different disciplines.

To fully appreciate the complexity of our jurisdiction we have to know how each component of its environment relates to national and statewide forces as well as to regional and local forces. Each consideration is studied in terms of its implications at different geographic scales. These two dimensions of analysis-the variety of professional