the office of the Resident Engineer, Corps of Engineers, foot of Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. 3. It is not proposed to hold a public hearing on this application. This public notice is being distributed to all known interested persons. Any facts developed will be given the same weight as if they were developed in a public hearing. Anyone desiring to submit a protest based on the proposition that the proposed work would unreasonably interfere with public navigation, or would unfavorably affect the navigable capacity of the said waterway, should submit such protest in writing in sufficient detail to admit of a clear understanding of the reasons therefor. 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. Protests based on effects on public navigation should be addressed to the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida, in time to be received on or before 25 February 1963. PUBLIC NOTICE H. R. PARFITT, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. Box 4970 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32201 SEJSP Permits (66-446) 9 November 1966 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT To Whom It May Concern: 1. Application has been made to the Department of the Army by Mr. Joey S. Shuler, 107 Park Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32018, for a permit to dredge a channel and to deposit spoil material on applicant's property in the Intracoastal Waterway, easterly shore, Halifax River, Ormond Beach, Volusia County, Florida. It is proposed to dredge to a depth of minus 8.0 feet below mean low water a channel 50 feet wide and would extend shoreward about 600 feet from the easterly channel line of the Intracoastal Waterway. The dredging would also include an area 50 feet wide and 300 feet long immediately channelward of applicant's property. The dredged material would be deposited on applicant's upland property behind adequate dikes. 2. Application plans of this work may be seen at the office of the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, 575 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. 3. This public notice is being distributed to all known interested persons in order to assist in developing facts on which decision by the Corps of Engineers can be based. For accuracy and completeness of the record, all data in support of or in opposition to the proposed work should be submitted in writting setting forth sufficient detail to furnish a clear understanding of the reasons for support or opposition. 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. In cases of conflicting property rights, the Corps of Engineers cannot undertake to adjudicate rival claims. Protests or comments regarding the application under consideration should be submitted to the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida, 32201, in time to be received on or before 30 November 1966. For the District Engineer: A. L. MCKNIGHT, Chief, Operations Division. Dr. CAIN. Obviously, we do not question the importance of the responsibility of the corps to protect navigation. Our concern, however, is that even when navigation is not adversely affected by dredging and filling, many cases exist where a permit should not be issued because important adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat would result, or it should be issued only with the conditions recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is the proper function of the Department of the Interior to control pollution and prevent a reduction in the quality of our waterways and the natural values that reside in estuaries insofar as national values of fish, wildlife, recreation, and natural beauty are involved. The corps is not, and should not be expected to be, responsible for these important functions of the Federal Government. I have stressed the physical damage to estuaries, shoals of the Great Lakes, and their connecting waters that results from filling, dredging, and excavation. In addition, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations governing the dumping of dredging spoil, earth, garbage, or other refuse materials except oil in our estuaries or the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a nationwide study of the estuarine areas of the United States to identify those areas where some form of conservation or protection is needed. This would be followed by a more detailed study of selected areas which should be preserved and protected and in some cases restored. These studies are in anticipation of the development of a national system of conserved estuarine areas through parallel, cooperative action of local government, the States, and the Federal Government. The Secretary of the Interior could acquire and develop lands and waters within designated estuarine areas of national significance only upon specific authorizing action by Congress, and only after completion of the above studies. In seeking the establishing of a nationwide system of conserved estuarine areas, the Secretary is authorized to enter into agreement with States and with local communities for the cooperative management and development of areas that are already principally in public ownership. Some may suggest that enactment of section 12 of H.R. 25 will give the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service authority over the fish and wildlife resources of the estuaries. This is not so. All of the authority of the States for the management of the fish and wildlife resources will continue to rest with the States if the bill is enacted. This would be no effect whatsoever on the authority of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the States over these resources. This is simply a proposal to help the State conservation departments preserve essential estuarine habitat for fish and wildlife and other purposes. Nothing else should be read into it. Where individual States have permit legislation of their own, this legislation will simply reinforce the decisions of their State agencies based on conservation considerations. The same question of concern over State jurisdiction of fish and wildlife resources was raised in 1946, when the first Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was under consideration by the Congress. There were substantial fears expressed by some of the States that giving the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service authority to examine the effects of Federal water resource projects on resident fish and game, as well as migratory birds, was an infringement on State jurisdiction over these resources. Slight changes were made in the bill at that time and it was passed. For 21 years now, the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service has worked cooperatively with the States under the authority of the Coordination Act and much has been accomplished in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. It is standard practice for our people to consult from the very first stages of a project investigation with the State fish and game departments. After a report on the project is prepared in draft form, it is submitted to the State for comments. The proposals of the fish and game departments for changes in the reports are generally adopted. The final reports that are submitted to the Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation not only incorporate all the agreed-upon proposals of the State, but also under standard policy must contain letters from the directors of the State fish and game departments endorsing and concurring in the reports. Thus, the 8,000 reports prepared pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, about which questions of infringement on State jurisdiction were raised 21 years ago, truly represent a joint conservation effort by the States and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the way it should be. Exactly the same procedure would be followed by the appropriate agencies of the Department of the Interior if this bill were enacted with its permit authority. The legislative history should reflect our assurance that the Department will provide full consultation in every case with the appropriate State agencies on every application made to the Department of the Interior for a permit to dredge and fill in estuaries. And we are positive that the same splendid record of cooperation between the State and Federal Governments will be complied in regard to estuaries as has been done under the Coordination Act. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I recommend your favorable consideration of the purposes embodied in H.R. 25 and other bills that seek the same goals, and of the enactment of legislation to accomplish them. Thank you very much. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Pelly? Mr. PELLY. Dr. Cain, it is a pleasure to have you before our committee. Dr. CAIN. Thank you. Mr. PELLY. I hope that maybe this year we can report out some legislation and not get the matter mixed up with a little local politics, as we did last year. In your schedule that you inserted in the record, I think, on page 6 of your testimony, you indicated that you were going to enumerate the various areas of the United States in which there were estuarine areas. Dr. CAIN. This table that I referred to and from which I extracted certain and pertinent data lists the total estuaries, and on the Great Lakes the shoal areas, for each of the States. A second column lists basic areas of important habitat. The third column lists the area of basic habitat that has been lost by dredging and filling, and the fourth column, the percentage of loss. Mr. PELLY. You don't refer in that to the matter of industrial pollution then? Dr. CAIN. No, sir. The whole impact of this part of the bill is on the physical destruction of estuaries and there are several actions of Congress with respect to pollution in the chemical and organic and sewage sense. Mr. PELLY. Well, you referred in your statement to, I think it was three States, including my State of Washington, as being threatened by commercial development, as I recall it. Dr. CAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. PELLY. Is that due to dredging for commercial purposes or what is the cause? Dr. CAIN. I would like to explain that statement more fully. I am sorry that I didn't make it clear. In accumulating data with respect to this problem, we asked the regions, which in turn asked the States, certain questions and one of the questions was: What are the three principal purposes for which dredging and filling permits are requested? And for the State of Washington the first purpose, the most frequent purpose, behind a request for a permit was commercial development. The second was navigation, and the State of Washington did not report a third purpose. I don't mean that there were not other purposes, but they reported the two leading purposes. Mr. PELLY. I think our State is now aware of the possible consequences of not preserving natural areas, but I am not quite sure exactly what we have in the way of estuarine areas in the Puget Sound area to protect. It's a 6-foot depth, is that right, up to 6 feet where tidal waters meet fresh waters? Dr. CAIN. That is correct. Well, if I may, I think I can make this clear. It is a little difficult to visualize. These two maps don't happen to apply to Washington, but I think I can make clear the point that is bothering me at the moment. May I use these two maps, Mr. Chairman? Mr. DINGELL. Certainly. Mr. Secretary, the counsel will also |