from the primary producers of energy to the final consumer shows the ultimate survival of only a tenth of a pound out of the original resource at the beginning of the chain of 10,000 pounds." That is a quote taken from Hay and Farb, 1966.

If every citizen in New York City were to remove one can of tuna fish from the supermarket shelves 1 day a week, think back to how many countless diatoms and crustaceans our estuarine dependent sea resources must produce.

Our estuarine dependent sea resources help to feed an expanding population with a dwindling food surplus. The commercial fishing industry and the shellfishing industry in Long Island is worth $12 million a year.

The sport fishing industry is worth $125 million per annum to Long Island alone. It is a source of employment for thousands of men and is a self-perpetuating antipoverty program that does not come out of your pocket or mine.

Marshlands are often more productive than our best farmlands. Yet these coastal factories use no electricity, are not subject to real estate taxes or union labor and wages or article 14 of the Taft-Hartley law.

These coastal factories produce every 24 hours throughout the year. Can we afford to allow their decline? Of Long Islands 400,000 submerged acres suitable for the cultivation and propagation of shellfish, approximately 170,000 have already been destroyed by pollution, filling, or ill-advised and indiscriminate dredging.

In 1964 there was a proposal to dredge Shinnecock Bay, 9,000 feet long and 600 feet wide. This, incidentaly, is almost wide enough for the Queen Mary to turn around.

The Marine Resources Committee of Long Island showed that dredging would destroy 90 acres of very valuable shellfish grounds. Estimates of yield at $1,000 per acre, per annum is a conservative estimate with no need for fertilizers, pesticides, or artificial irrigation.

Over a 20-year period just one acre is worth $25,000 considering 4 percent interest.

RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT

1. We would like to indicate our total support of H.R. 25—particularly because it is the first time the Federal Government recognizes the uniqueness and value of the estuarine system.

2. Exceptionally important to the success and implementation of the bill are:

Section 2. Provision for this Nation to take inventary of its present nonrenewable resource in estuarine areas from scientific and economic, and sociological aspects before any drastic development action is taken.

Section 5. Present Federal lands now obsolete for their original intended purpose may have their jurisdiction transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 6. The Secretary of the Interior must have regulatory powers to protect the investment in this bill.

Section 8 and section 12. The Secretary of the Interior who has responsibility for the total picture of many kinds of resources, is responsible for issuing development permits.

3. Although we strongly are in favor of this bill and would support its enactment in total, we would respectfully offer the following

comments:

A more inclusive definition of the estuary as cited in section 13 might be considered to include many of New York's estuaries. An estuary is usually defined as a semi-enclosed body of water partly cut off from the ocean by land masses.

A region of steep and variable gradients where fresh water by rivers or underground seepage measurably dilutes sea water. Several estuaries on Long Island at this time or in the immediate past have not had an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea.

Mecox Bay, Georgica Pond, Oyster Pond, at Montauk Point, do not have an open connection with the sea while Shinnecock Bay and Moriches Bay were closed prior to the 1938 hurricane.

Yet they are still estuaries except for the fact that the inlets are opened or closed by hurricanes, violent storms, or the result of man's activities.

An unimpaired natural connection with the sea would also exclude many of the salt ponds in Massachusetts and Rhode Island because they are only periodically open to the sea.

Because of the considerable importance of costal wetlands for primary productivity and the subsequent dependence of shellfish, finfish, and waterfowl on their products as well as the capacity of that peat and muck substrata with its attendent vegetation to absorb tidal flooding the salt marshes and coastal wetlands of the transitional areas should be defined, perhaps in a manner similar to H 1643 Public Law 1965 of the Rhode Island General Assembly, by the characteristic vegetation as well as tidal influence.

This is attached on the last sheet of this statement. (Attachment follows:)

[H. 1643 substitute "B," chapter 140-P.L. 1965, approved May 19, 1965, January session, A.D. 1965]

RHODE ISLAND MARSHLAND ZONING

"2-1-14. Definitions.-A coastal wetland shall mean any salt marsh bordering on the tidal waters of this state, whether or not the tide waters reach the littoral areas through natural or artificial water courses, and such uplands contiguous thereto, but extending no more than fifty (50) yards inland therefrom, as the director shall deem reasonably necessary to protect such salt marshes for the purposes set forth in section 2-1-13. Salt marshes shall include those areas upon which grow some, but not necessarily all of the following: Salt meadow grass (Spartina patens), spike grass (Distichlis spicata), black grass (Juncus gerardi), saltmarsh grass (Spartina alterniflora), saltworts (Salicornia europaea, and Salicornia biglovii), sea lavender (Limonium carolinianum) saltmarsh bulrushes (Scirpus robustus, and Scirpus paludosus var. atlanticus), sand spurrey (Spergularia marina), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), tall cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), high-tide bush (Iva frutescens var. oraria), cattails (Typha angustifolia, and Typha latifolia), spike rush (Eleocharis rostellata), chairmaker's rush (Scirpus americana), bent grass (Agrostis palustris), and sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata). The occurence and extent of saltmarsh peat at the undisturbed surface shall be construed to be evidence of the extent of a salt marsh or a part thereof."

Mr. MOELLER. Long ago Ducks Unlimited recognized the value of wetlands and focused their efforts on the accumulation of marshlands. Their efforts have been rewarding enough that they continue to invest private capital in that project.

Can the Nation afford not to treat the estuarine environment with any less seriousness?

Conservation is no longer a religious fervor that needs missionaries and converts, but a science that includes economics, sociology, business and esthetics as well as all of the traditional sciences.

House bill 25 is a recognition of this fact and provides for the study before development, enjoyment and preservation, and multiple use of the sport and commercial potential of our valuable estuarine resource. This report is respectfully submitted by J. D. Barton, Jr., J. R. Welker, and H. W. Moeller, Jr.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Moeller, your statement is very well done, indeed. The committee is grateful to you for your presence and for your helpful testimony.

Thank you very much.

Off the record.

The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

(Recess.)

Mr. DINGELL. The committee will come to order.

The Chair would like to welcome Mr. Cornelius Poillon for any statement he may wish to make.

STATEMENT OF CORNELIUS POILLON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LONG ISLAND FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, WESTHAMPTON BEACH, N.Y.

Mr. POILLON. I am Cornelius Poillon, executive secretary of the Long Island Fishermen's Association. I have a letter from John E. Suydam, president of the National Party Boat Owners Alliance, authorizing me to speak for him in support of this bill.

I would like to enter that into the record, sir.

DEAR CAPTAIN POILLON: Will you be so kind as to present before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Sub-Committee, which is scheduled to hold hearings next week, our joint view in support of H.R. 25.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN E. SUYDAM, President.

Mr. POILLON. Mr. Chairman, I am the executive secretary of the Long Island Fishermen's Association, an association which has represented the commercial fishing industry of Long Island, N.Y., for 32 years.

This association feels that if H.R. 25 is enacted into law it will become a major step in fisheries management for the protection of both finfish and shellfish.

For a long period of time we have been aware of the importance of our wetlands and estuaries for the irreplaceable part that they play as a nursery, spawning and food-producing areas for many species of marine life. We further recognize that new legislation is neeeded to protect these areas.

In the past the commercial fishing industry has had certain differences with sports fishermen and conservationist groups. However, we have worked with them in trying to get cooperation at all levels of government, be it village, town, county, or State, in matters pertaining to dredging and land-filling operations in the marine environment.

We have had very little success, even though we have repeatedly requested legislation that would give consideration to fishing and conservationist views in the issuing of dredging permits.

At the present time there is a bill before the New York State Assembly which would, if enacted, give the State controls over dredging and land filling in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. These counties are presently excluded from State law. It does not look as though this amendment will pass this session.

One area where Federal legislation such as H.R. 25 would be of assistance in preserving a given fishery that is open for destruction by man, but not by overfishing, is the striped bass fishery of the Chesapeake Bay area of the State of Maryland.

This region is the major spawning and nursery area for striped bass on the Atlantic coast. During their migrations these striped bass furnish sport and a livelihood for the fishermen of New York and other coastal States.

Mr. Edgar H. Hollis, biologist in charge, fishery investigations, Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, in his report on the status of striped bass in Maryland reported that the greatest danger that striped bass faced now and in the future in this area was not overfishing but rather the manmade changes on and above the major spawning grounds of striped bass.

These changes, whatever they be, could have untold damage on the future populations of this species.

The above case is one of many that can be projected as to the adverse effects that any uncontrolled dredging, land filling, pollution, and thermal pollution could have on any other species of marine fishes that uses these areas, be it for a nursery or for a spawning area. These manmade changes could destroy a given fishery.

In closing, let me say that the Long Island Fishermen's Association is not against all dredging. However, we wish and hope to have the values of the estuarine and wetland areas taken into consideration before any dredging permits are issued by any governmental agency.

We therefore request that the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries report favorably on H.R. 25 and cannot stress too strongly and urge in the name of conservation and fisheries the swift passage of H.R. 25 in law.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Poillon, the Chair is grateful to you for your fine presentation and for your presence today. I do appreciate your patience in waiting to be heard until this very late hour.

Mr. POILLON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. If you will give the reporter your full name and address, sir, for the record.

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS MCNICOL, FIRE ISLAND SEA CLAM CO., INC., WEST SAYVILLE, N.Y.

Mr. MCNICOL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Douglas McNicol, from the Fire Island Sea Clam Co., of West Sayville, Long Island.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have been in the shellfish business in Great South Bay on the south shore of Long Island for 20 years. Until several years ago, I had always assumed that appropriate measures were being taken by our county and State governmental agencies to protect our natural resources.

In the summer of 1965 we in the shellfish industry suddenly realized that there was something wrong with the condition of the water and the clams and oysters in the bay.

A dense bloom of small algae appeared, clogging the gills of the shellfish and making the water unfit for almost every purpose, except for supporting a boat. Work done that same fall by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and previous studies by the same organization and others during the early fifties when we had an identical bloom led me to the following conclusion.

The bloom, in my opinion, was caused by a number of factors. The existence of numerous duck farms whose effluent was allowed to flow into the tributaries of the bays, the sewage systems of one of the villages along with cesspools near the bay, and, most of all, of the dredging program which had been undertaken that spring and

summer.

Immense quantities of sludge deposits composed mostly of duck waste had been pumped onto marshlands and the overflow, literally liquid fertilizer, allowed to run off into the bay waters.

I became interested in the operation of the two dredges owned by Suffolk County and also in the work done by private contractors for the county and others. I have endeavored to find out what criteria were used in determining how the work was done by these dredges and have discovered that little consideration was given to the preservation of salt marshes or shellfish beds.

Recommendations for changes in the applications were made from time to time by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by the New York State Conservation Department but for the most part they were ignored by the county.

I discovered that no regulations existed at either the town or county level. I found that the existing State law, which had become effective on January 1, 1966, explicitly excluded Nassau and Suffolk Counties from its protection.

These two counties contain most of the unspoiled wetlands left in the State and are under the most severe pressure. We have here a situation where the two dredges owned by the county of Suffolk and operated solely to improve navigation have done immeasurable damage to the estuarine complex.

At the Federal level, obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is almost routine. I can find no instance of a permit being refused because the work contemplated would have an adverse effect on "fish and wildlife conservation aspects" as the phrase is used in the Army Engineers notices.