elevation, subsidence and configuration, the Nation's shorelines present an ever-changing prospect-with the years, the centuries and the millenia. Because these processes are not everywhere the same, the prospect changes as we visit Maine's rocky headlands with small estuaries at stream mouths, Florida's flatland coast, or Oregon's sea cliffs. In some places the mighty waves of the sea break directly on the mainland and estuarine systems are limited closely to the mouths of streams. Along the Mid and South Atlantic coast barrier beaches through hundreds of thousands of acres of brackish marshland and provide safe boating for hundreds of miles. H.R. 25 and the companion bills are not concerned with the open ocean, nor with the fresh water stretches of streams that go down to meet it. Rather, it deals with the areas in between that are under the direct influence of the salty sea and its tides. Hence, we are talking about the kinds of places that have such common names as bays, coasts, sounds, harbors, lagoons, tidal marshes, inshore waters and channels. From the point of view of vegetation, there are sea-grass flats that lie below low tide, mud and salt flats, salt marshes of several kinds that are flooded periodically to different depths and for different lengths of time, mangrove forests and salt brush areas flooded only by the highest tides. In this great and changing complex that is neither land nor sea, there are in places large areas that are constantly covered by shallow water even during the lowest tides, that yet have reduced salt content because of the inflow of large amounts of fresh water. Florida Bay in Everglades National Park and the great delta region of the Mississippi are two examples. The estuarine complex is generally very fertile and productive of plant and animal life-more productive, in general, than either land or sea. This is due in large measure to the dynamics of the tidal cycles, which mixes fresh water with its burden from the land-all too often humus and the best top soil-with the mineral-rich sea water and the organic products of underwater decay that are not allowed to stay settled on the bottom. Thus, a sort of constantly stirred rich broth is provided in a sheltered environment for small and microscopic plant and animal plankton to form the abundant food for successively higher links in the food chains that make up a web of life. The result is phenomenal. Perhaps two-thirds of all coastal sport fish are estuary-dependent during part of their lives. Some single estuaries are the spawning grounds, nurseries, or growing-up places for two dozen or more species of commercially important shellfish, crustacea, and finfishes. Anadromous fish pass through the estuaries on their way from the sea to fresh-water streams to spawn, and the young return again to the sea to grow up salmon, shad, striped bass, alewife, some trouts-sometimes pausing in the estuaries for a portion of their juvenile lives. A few species reverse such migrations, and some of course spend their entire lives in estuaries. We estimate that about 90 percent of the total harvest of seafood taken by American fishermen comes from the Continental Shelf and about two-thirds of the species involved depend in one way or another on estuaries. Many estuaries produce more harvestable human food per acre than the best Midwestern farmland. Perhaps 8 million sport fishermen enjoy estuarine and coastal fishing and open-ocean fishing for estuary-related species. The value of commercial species supports I do not wish to oversell the value of estuaries, but they provide It is not the purpose of these bills, nor of my statement to dwell on At my request, the Fish and Wildlife Service has tabulated the 20- I would like to ask inclusion in the record of this table and at this Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The table follows:) National summary-Loss of important fish and wildlife estuarine habitat 1 In Great Lakes only shoals (areas less than 6 feet deep) were considered as estuaries. Dr. CAIN. For the 26 States involved the total estuarine area is almost 27 million acres. The important area of basic fish and wildlife habitat is 8 million acres, of which about 570,000 acres, or over 7 percent, has been destroyed by dredging and filling. As one would anticipate, there is much variation from State to State, with the greatest losses in the Northeast, Florida, and California. California has the dubious honor of being first, because of the loss of 256,000 out of a total of 382,000 acres of habitat, for a total of 67 percent. This high loss is attributable to a large extent to the fact. that since 1950 the San Francisco-Suisun Bay area has lost 192,000 out of 294,000 acres. Between 10 and 15 percent of true estuary has been lost by New Hampshire (10 percent), Connecticut (10 percent), New York (15 percent), and New Jersey (13 percent), and Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have lost over 6 percent each. The Mid and South Atlantic States are in fair shape in this regard, ranging between 0.3 and 1.6 percent, except for Delaware (5.6 percent) and Florida (7.5 percent). The Gulf States range between 1.5 and 2.2 percent, except for Texas, which has 8.2 percent loss. For each State, we have listed the three most important purposes of dredging and filling. Navigation heads the list, closely followed by commercial developments and housing developments. Additional purposes, coming within the major purposes for one State or another, include highway construction, oil exploration, mining, marinas, military bases, garbage dumps, and beach erosion. The purpose of first importance for dredging and filling was housing in Florida, oil and gas exploration in Louisiana, commercial development in New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington, and navigation in the remaining States. The major groups of fish and wildlife affected by this kind of habitat loss reported are as follows: Shellfish: clams, oysters, scallops, and mussels. Crustacea: shrimp, lobster, and crabs. Finfish: trout, steelhead, salmon, seatrout, mullet, striped bass, flounder, bluefish, shad, mangrove snapper, menhaden, red fish, smelt, alewives, pollock, tautog, croker, and drums. Wildlife: the whole group of waterfowl, including ducks, geese, wading and shore birds, rails, marsh hen, alligators, fur-bearers such as muskrats and seals. Of the 22 seacoast States, loss of important habitat was reported for the highly valued oysters in 20 States, crabs in 18, clams in 14, and shrimps in 10. I might say these include the highest dollar value seafood that we have. Among the finfishes, the Service reported significant habitat loss for striped bass, flounder, salmon, shad, bluefish, mullet, and sea trout. Every State incurred loss of waterfowl habitat, and in about half of them there were important losses for shore birds, wading birds and fur-bearing mammals. I have no measures or even estimates of recreational losses resulting from the physical destruction of estuaries, so I will assume that they approach the overall acreage loss. I would call it an opportunity loss. On the other hand, there is no question but that those relatively few persons who have acquired private waterfront property, especially in the Venetian developments which have both auto and boat access, are experiencing a recreational benefit. In one State housing development was reported as the first purpose of dredging and filling; in three it was reported to be the second purpose; and in six it was the third purpose. I would like to turn attention now to the manifest fact that most States and the Federal Government do not now have adequate legal devices to protect estuaries, especially from the loss of intangible or at least nonmonetary values of which many are of public interest. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to comment on Federal projects and on permit applications as they affect fish and wildlife habitat. This applies, of course, to permits for dredging and filling issued by the Corps of Engineers. On its side, the corps must give consideration to the comments and reports of the Service, but it is not required to comply with them or require permittees to do so. I would like to review the record for the past 5 years. In 1962 the Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed 552 permit applications for dredging and filling along the Atlantic and gulf coasts. It recommended denial of permit in 18 cases; the corps nevertheless issued permits in 10 of these cases. In 1963 and subsequent years there were data for all coastal areas and the Great Lakes. In 1963 the Service reviewed 1,926 applications, recommending denial of 11. The corps issued only two permits over our recommendations for denial and one permit where our recommendations were provided for in the permit. During the last 3 years the Service, rather than recommending denial of a permit, has in most instances recommended modifications or conditions in the permit for the purpose of protecting fish and wildlife values. Data for these last 3 calendar years have been summarized for the Corps of Engineers permit program in estuarine areas and Great Lakes shoals, including 26 States. There were 4,055 permits involving estuaries and shoals. Those were all reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The normal field procedure is to prepare a report only on permit applications when specific recommendations are to be made for the purpose of protecting fish and wildlife values. Such reports were made in 263 cases and the Service recommendations were complied with in 166 of them, which is 63 percent. Service recommendations were not complied with in 29 cases, or 11 percent. On December 31, 1966, action was pending on 68 cases. I want to make it clear that some States have made significant advances in legislation and administration to protect estuarine areas, especially during recent years. I would like to turn now to the reasons why I believe that the Department of the Interior should be given a reasonable power to preserve, protect, develop, and restore estuarine areas of the Nation. In the first place, it is apparent that many of the large estuarine systems are interstate features of nature. Some, like that of the Chesapeake and Potomac, involve several States from the open ocean to the upper reaches of high tide. Others along the mid- and southAtlantic shores and long stretches of the gulf are laterally interconnecting estuarine systems behind island chains of the outer banks, also involving several States. What one State does or fails to do has its effects upon the condition of the estuary of sister States. Second, I would like to make clear my view of the inadequacy of the present situation with respect to the broad public interest in estuaries. The corps maintains, and its public notices on applications for permits state, that: While a Department of the Army permit merely expresses assent so far as the public rights of navigation are concerned, information from interested persons on aspects of the proposed work other than navigation will be accepted and made a part of the record on the application. A copy of a public notice from the Jacksonville, Fla., district engineer, dated November 9, 1966, containing this language is offered for the record. However, as recently as 1963, public notices read: The Federal courts have ruled that the decision of the Department of the Army must be based on the effect the proposed work would have upon navigation, and not on its effect on property values or other considerations having nothing to do with navigation. I offer for the record a public notice from the Jacksonville, Fla., district engineer of January 28, 1963, containing this language. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, they will be included in the record at this time. (The documents follow :) PUBLIC NOTICE U.S. ARMY ENGINEERS DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE CORPS OF ENGINEERS 575 RIVERSIDE AVENUE JACKSONVILLE 2, FLORIDA SAKSP Bridges (1108) 28 January 1963 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF BRIDGE PLANS To Whom It May Concern: 1. Application has been made to the Department of the Army by Florida Patsand Corporation, 3830 West Flagler Street, Suite 15, Miami, Florida, for Department of the Army approval of the location and plans of a proposed causeway with six bridges across Biscayne Bay from a point on the mainland near Black Point easterly to Sand Key in Dade County, Florida. The alinement and location of the causeway and the clearances of the bridges are shown on the reverse side of this notice. 2. Application plans of this work may be seen at the office of the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, 575 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, and at |