Statement of Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Re: Federal Register Notice of August 1, 2006 and 33 C.F.R. Part 165
Comments for the U.S. Coast Guard
October 23, 2006

I appreciate the hard work of the U.S. Coast Guard in protecting our waters and our borders from all manner of threat, and providing for the safety of those individuals and companies using our waters for trade, recreation, travel, or any other legitimate use. I am pleased that the Coast Guard is seeking ways for its personnel to be better trained and better prepared to keep our waters and borders safe.

That being said, I believe that the August 1, 2006, Federal Register notice seeking permanent "Safety Zones" for live fire exercises is premature, at best. The Great Lakes are the world’s largest source of fresh water and provide clean drinking water for the people of the entire region. Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes are also an important resource for trade, recreation, transportation, species diversity, and international cooperation. Before any determination of the appropriateness for such zones, a full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) is needed. The August 1 Federal Register notice does not, and cannot, adequately address the environmental consequences until a full NEPA review is done.

I believe that alternatives must be made available to the Coast Guard so that it can fulfill its mission to keep our borders safe without sacrificing the safety of our lakes. Conducting live fire exercises on our lakes is too risky for those who use the Great Lakes for drinking water and other commercial and recreational uses. If, after this series of hearings, the Coast Guard still wants to conduct these exercises, then it must conduct a full NEPA review. This series of hearings is not a NEPA review. Instead, the Coast Guard is failing to comply with our nation’s environmental law.

NEPA is perhaps the most important environmental law enacted by Congress. While it does not set pollution emissions levels, nor even ban any particular activity, it does set a standard for all federal agencies for public outreach whenever the government contemplates an action which would have a significant effect on our environment.

Specifically, NEPA requires "all agencies of the Federal Government" to:

(A)utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on man’s environment;
(B)identify and develop methods and procedures in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. . . which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenites and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations;
(C)include in every recommendation or report on . . . major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on
(i)the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii)any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii)alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv)the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v)any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

See 42 U.S.C. § 4332. The statute goes also requires that all documents and information shall be available to the public. See id. Furthermore, Federal regulations require that the public be involved in every stage of the NEPA process. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. 1500.1, 1501.4, 1503.1, 1506.6.

Much is at stake. The Sierra Club notes that nearly 7,000 pounds of lead compounds will be pumped into the Great Lakes as a result of these exercises, which is double the amount of lead discharged to surface waters from the entire state of Ohio in a year. Cleveland’s Environmental Health Watch has documented that approximately 25,000 children under age 6 are hurt by lead exposure, and 20,000 of those children live in the City of Cleveland. Cleveland is noted to be the poorest major city in the nation, and a major port on Lake Erie.

This raises a number of questions which could have, and should have, been raised in the NEPA process: To what extent is the Coast Guard complying with the discharge permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act? To what extent is the Coast Guard complying with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, a.k.a. Superfund) with respect to the permanent hazardous disposal ground it is creating on our lake beds? To what extent is the Coast Guard complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which prohibits open dumping and disposal of solid waste? To what extent is the Coast Guard in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Species Act with respect to the eagles, ducks, cranes, and other endangered and migratory species which share our lakes?

These are not the only questions my constituents and I have. But these are questions which have not been asked and answered as part of the required environmental review under NEPA.

NEPA, as all regulations, laws, and the Constitution of the United States, depends on its good faith execution by the Federal agencies under its jurisdiction. In this case, the public must rely on the Coast Guard to ask the right questions to go through a proper and thorough decision-making process.

Unfortunately, when the Coast Guard went through its environmental checklist for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), it did not ask the right questins, and it gave the wrong answers. See Document USCG-2006-25767-197, at http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=416680&docketid=25767. (Attachment 1).

For example, when asked if there is likely to be a significant effect on public health or safety, the Coast Guard answered "NO." No? We’re talking about shooting bullets off of bobbing boats on the choppy waters of Lake Erie during target practice. No effect on safety?

When asked if the proposed action would occur on or near a unique characteristic of the geographic area, such as a historic or cultural resource, park land, prime farmland, wetland, wild and scenic river, ecologically critical area, or property requiring special consideration, the Coast Guard answered "NO." No? The world’s largest fresh water supply is not an ecologically critical area? The Great Lakes is not or does not include wetlands?

When asked if there is a potential for effects on the quality of the environment that are likely to be highly controversial in terms of scientific validity or public opinion, the Coast Guard answered "NEED DATA." I hope that through these hearings, which are not NEPA hearings, but only hearings on whether or not to create so-called “safety zones,” the Coast Guard gets enough data to answer this question.

Out of 10 questions about the environment on its checklist, the only answers the Coast Guard gave were “NO” and “NEED DATA.” Out of 10 questions, the Coast Guard did not answer one question “YES.” That’s 10 out of 10 wrong answers.

Target practice in the Great Lakes will have an effect on the environment, the safety, and the well-being our lakes and the people who live near and use our lakes. The Coast Guard needs to do a serious environmental review in full compliance with NEPA so that it can learn from the people who understand both the natural and the human environment exactly what effect its target practice will have.

When I learned about the Coast Guard’s proposal to set up permanent firing ranges throughout our lakes, I met with many constituents who shared their perspectives with me. I also met with other members of the Great Lakes delegation in Congress. We are in full agreement that the Coast Guard is not acting lawfully in deciding to conduct live fire exercises without full environmental review and we are prepared to organize throughout the region against target practice in the Great Lakes.

I am convinced that these exercises are not necessary in our lakes. I ask that the Coast Guard find already existing firing ranges and send their personnel to those places for their target practice exercises and not in the way of the people who live, work, and play in our Great Lakes.

Regardless of my opinion, if the Coast Guard still wants to engage in target practice on Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes, then it must follow the procedures set up by the law. The Coast Guard is not above the law. It must conduct a full environmental review. Once it does, it will learn, as I have from my constituents and colleagues in Congress, how its proposed exercises fails to comply with the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, CERCLA, RCRA, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Species Act, and the Native Americans Religious Freedoms Act, as well as other laws and treaties dealing with live fire on the Great Lakes.

The Coast Guard must take the necessary steps to follow the statutory mandate established by Congress and the regulatory process promulgated by the DOT, CEQ, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies. In doing so, the Coast Guard will, at the very least, get some of the answers on its checklist right. More importantly, it will learn from the people exactly what is at stake in its proposal to conduct target practice on our Great Lakes.