connection with the open sea or connection with and influenced by the open sea by tidal flow from time to time." We sincerely hope that the above comments will be considered by the House of Representatives and others concerned with the disposition of H.R. 25 and that they will, in some small measure, be constructive and helpful. Yours very truly, PETER L. JOHNSON, Vice President. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This is to inform you of my favorable reaction to your bill H.R. 25. It is timely and badly needed legislation. In Florida we have watched as our estuaries have been destroyed piece by piece, an especially unhappy experience since every bit of scientific data we have collected reinforces the knowledge that estuaries are absolutely essential to fisheries and some forms of wildlife. For 10 years I have been involved in trying to save the estuaries of Everglades National Park which are being threatened by drainage activities outside the park boundaries. It is time that the problems of estuarine productivity and beauty be taken into consideration in our national resource planning. You are to be congratulated for an enlightened approach to the problems. Sincerely yours, DURBIN C. TABB, Instructor, Division of Fishery Sciences. TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, Congressman JOHN DINGELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DINGELL: I have studied the bill, H.R. 1397 (H.R. 25) introduced by Mr. Tenzer to the House of Representatives, 10 January 1967. As a student of marine food resources, especially in estuarine waters, over the past 35 years I am indeed conscious of the value of the legislation proposed in the article. I wish to add my encouragement to the passage of the proposal and I hope you are successful in your support of the article. Respectfully yours, WILLIS G. HEWATT, Chairman. MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, Congressman JOHN DINGELL, House of Representatives, DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: I wish to congratulate you on your action of offering bill HR 25 re protection of estuaries. The lack of this important legislation is one of the serious gaps in the conservation of our natural resources. We have found ourselves wiping out vast populations of Federally protected species by the systematic destruction of environments. Here in California, we have for example several estuaries which are absolutely essential to the survival of the Black Brant and a host of migratory shore birds. Total industrialization of these marsh zones is a serious threat to the survival of these forms. Without a concerted effort, the manifold loss is inevitable. Please make this letter a matter of public record in support of HR 25. Sincerely yours, VERNAL L. YADON, Curator. MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, Hon. JOHN DINGELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. DINGELL: I would like to go on record as strongly supporting H.R. 25, the Estuarine Bill, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with the States to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and make accessible estuarine areas of the Nation which are valuable for sport and commercial fishing, wildlife conservation, recreation, and scenic beauty. Over the past 30 years my major professional energies have been directed to the biology of the coastal areas of the east coast of the United States from Morehead City, North Carolina, to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. During these several decades, in the course of teaching and research, I have had an unusual opportunity to appreciate in deep measure the scenic beauty, recreation, and biological resources of the fringe of the sea where land and sea interplay. Simultaneously I have watched with deep concern the accelerated rate of irreparable physical alteration and chemical contamination of our estuaries by man, as the one sided tug of war between conservation and economic exploitation has quickened. It is thus with deep conviction that I add my support to the Bill. In April of this year the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing a large comprehensive volume entitled "Estuaries," edited by Dr. George H. Lauff, which brings together reports on the geological, chemical, physical, and biological aspects of estuaries by specialists from all over the world, including a chapter by me. The publication resulted from an important international symposium on estuaries held at Jekyll Island, Georgia, in 1964. It is possible that a call to the AAAS in Washington might bring an advance copy for your use in documenting the scientific and economic value of estuaries to man, if you feel this might be helpful. Much has been said about the desirability of "saving our estuaries" and about their exploitation, but one of the most succinct summaries I've seen in a long time is that by James T. McBroom, Assistant Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, entitled "Estuaries and Conservation." One paragraph in that address, I feel, is particularly appropriate with reference to this Bill: "but when we try to establish laws and rules against the total exploitation of natural resources, we step on the toes of those who would exploit these resources for maximum economic gain." May I express the hope that the Bill will pass in useful form. MELBOURNE R. CARRIKER. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 30 and the accompanying testimony of Congressman Wydler. Nassau County is in the process of providing sewer facilities for an area which at present contains 550,000 people, and will ultimately contain 1,000,000. Pollution from cesspools and the waste disposal systems now in effect has a serious effect on the bays on the south coast of the county, and threatens to pollute our water supply, all of which comes from wells. Exhaustive studies of 28 potential treatment plant sites were made throughout the area in the southeasterly section of our county, but the only site on which any kind of agreement could be reached, after years of effort, in this site in Seaford. Part of this area is wetlands. Conservationists, including experts from the U.S. Department of the Interior, have recognized the priority requirements for a water pollution control plant (or sewage disposal plant), despite the fact that, in this case, an area of wetlands would be affected. Following a long series of public hearings, the site was unanimously approved by the County Board of Supervisors. In order to try to meet at least some of the local objections, the site of the treatment plant was established within the total site area, with the understanding that there would be extensive protection and buffering for the residential areas to the north and east. The location and design of the plant and its peripheral areas were also predicated on the location of the Wantagh-Oyster Bay Expressway (previously established by the State of New York) which so divided the overall site as to make only the southern portion-197 acres-large enough for the plant. The plant site itself requires 76 acres, plus 20 acres of perimeter slopes for stability, and 7 acres for the construction of the effluent pipe line. An additional 77 acres is needed for disposal of 371,000 cubic yards of excavated muck from the plant site and Cedar Creek, a stream which must be relocated. This muck is too unstable to support the buildings and other facilities of the water pollution control plant. Thus the 180 acres for the plant and its peripheral area leave 17 acres of wetland which the County is able to preserve in its natural state. Since the 371,000 yards of muck cannot be sold to commercial interests due to its instability, alternative, disposal methods were explored. One, trucking to the county park at Salisbury, 8 miles away, would cost $1,700,000. Another, barging to sea, would cost $1,500,000 due primarily to the need to dredge a 19,000 foot access channel. This access channel would do a great deal more damage to the wetlands ecology than the county's proposed project. Faced with these costly alternatives, the county chose to proceed with plans for utilizing the acreage for recreational purposes. I find it quite ironic that my administration is under attack for lack of interest on conservation, since our record in this regard is excellent. To cite several exemples: 1. County park acreage has more than doubled since I took office-from approximately 1,500 acres to more than 3,600 at the end of 1966. 2. Cow Meadow, a 175-acre wetland area, was purchased by the county after a series of court suits had supported the owner's contention that he had a right to develop the land. Proposed development, whether industrial or residential, would have destroyed valuable wetlands. The county acquired the property and is developing a Natural History Museum for Wetlands at the north end, leaving all the rest of the area as it was. 3. I recently joined with local residents and conservation organizations in the Bayville-Mill Neck-Locust Valley area on the North Shore of Long Island to preserve a 490-acre conservation area-Mill Neck Creek conservation area. The county's contribution will be the acquisition of 41 acres of valuable tidal marshes, now zoned commercial and residential. 4. I have appointed a Scenic Easement Advisory Committee to assist in preservation of scenic and aesthetic values through special arrangements with private land owners. 5. At my direction, a thorough study of a Marine Environment Center on Long Island was made. The study concentrated on recreation and education, as well as on research and industry. 6. The County's Natural History Museum system, decentralized in concept and development, emphasizes conservation of natural resources in addition to wetlands, already mentioned-woodlands at Tackapausha and Muttontown, terminal moraine of Wisconsin Glacier (an early Indian settlement) at Garvies Point, Glen Cove. The proposed Sands Point area will feature conservation education, Marine biology and camping. 7. In January 1964, when it appeared that the water pollution control plant would actually be located in Seaford, the deputy commissioner for recreation and parks met with my Conservation Advisory Committee to discuss the source of fill, since quantities required seemed to indicate the probability of dredging. Ever since that time, the county and its consultants have been concerned about the source of fill and actually, at considerable expense, have come to agreement on the use of material, that all are in agreement does not destroy valuable bay bottom. The source of the fill is a sand bar. After still further conferences with conservation leaders the county agreed to make changes in the Seaford filling plans in order to pull back from the edge of Seamons Island Channel. 8. This project has been approved by the Department of the Interior through Assistant Secretary Dr. Stanley Cain, who is charged with the preservation of wetlands. The whole matter was explained to him and his staff at a meeting here in the County, and he has given his full approval. We have assured Dr. Cain that the county will do everything it can to preserve as much of the wetlands as possible. Prior to our meeting with him, Dr. Cain had apparently been misled and had caused the district engineer to delay issuance of the dredging permit. The irresponsible and misleading action on the part of those who misled Dr. Cain has delayed a water pollution control project which is indispensable to the health and well-being of the citizens of Nassau County, and to the prevention of further irreparable damage to the wetlands. As I pointed out in my testimony before your committee, I have no hesitancy in endorsing the bill to give the Department of the Interior the right to make judgments with respect to preservation of the wetlands. We are glad to place our case in the hands of those who have the expertise to make an informed judgment. I appreciate this opportunity to provide you and your committee with the facts in this matter, and to reemphasize my administration's concern for conservation of our resources. Sincerely yours, EUGENE H. NICKERSON. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 26, 1967. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: During the recent hearings on H.R. 25, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation requested this Department to review the bill and propose an alternative approach by April 26, 1967, which would recognize the role of the States in protecting the Nation's estuaries and which would overcome some of the technical difficulties raised with some of the other provisions of the bill. In furtherance of this request, there is enclosed a draft bill. We urge the early enactment of H.R. 25 in the form of this draft bill. The principal provisions of the enclosed draft bill are as follows: 1. The enclosed draft bill declares that any modification of our Nation's estuaries with their rich natural, commercial, and other resources directly and indirectly affects commerce and that these estuaries are important to present and future generations of Americans. The draft bill, unlike H.R. 25, provides that it is the purpose of this legislation to protect, conserve, and restore these estuaries and control their uses in a manner that recognizes a reasonable balance between protection and conservation and economic development. Thus, the bill establishes a policy of balancing the need of our expanding communities for development and the national need for conserving our resource rich estuaries for all Americans. We must be responsive to both needs. The bill is not designed to stop the dredging of our estuaries. 2. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to authorize anyone to conduct dredging, filling, or excavation work in an estuary under such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe in order to minimize any adverse effects on the estuary, unless the Secretary finds that such work will unreasonably impair the natural resources of the estuary or that such work will reduce the water quality of the estuary. The Secretary may find, however, that notwithstanding the impact on the natural resources the work should be done in the public interest. He could not, however, permit such work if it would reduce the quality of the waters below applicable water quality standards because Congress established in 1965 that such pollution would be subject to an enforcement action. The bill directs the Secretary not to authorize the work if the affected State objects to the work. The bill authorizes public hearings at the request of any interested person, or on the Secretary's own motion. It also directs the Secretary to make this part of the program as self-sustaining as possible through the establishment of fees and charges collected from persons seeking to dredge, fill, or excavate in the estuaries. Persons who own or rent single-family residences and want to do some dredging, filling, or excavation work solely for their own benefit would not be required to obtain an authorization from the Secretary to do such work. Such an exclusion is highly desirable for such items as a small boat slip for one or two boats, or a retaining wall, or similar activities. The bill contemplates that the Secretary would issue general regulations describing the types of work that could be performed without any approval by him. This exception for singlefamily residences will not be allowed to thwart the purpose of the bill. 3. The draft bill provides that where a State establishes a system of protecting and conserving estuaries that carries out the purpose of this legislation, dredging, filling, and excavation work would be controlled by the State rather than the Secretary of the Interior. The adequacy and effectiveness of the State system is determined by the Secretary, based on a State plan which must be approved by him. Failure to follow the approved State plan may result after an opportunity for a public hearing in a reassertion of control by the Secretary. Thus, the draft bill, unlike H.R. 25, gives the States an opportunity to carry out their own control programs. This is particularly important in those States where some control now exists. 4. The draft bill also requires anyone who proposes to conduct dredging, filling, or excavation work in the Great Lakes and connecting waterways, and adjacent wetlands, to follow these same procedures. 5. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a detailed inventory of the estuaries of the country. The inventory will consider the resource values of the area, their economic and recreational potential, their ecology, the present use of the areas, their need for present and future urban and industrial development, the effects of such development on the areas, the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries on fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, and waterpower, and the effects of dredging and filling on the areas and their resources. They will be the basis for determining the most appropriate means and measures of preserving or restoring particular areas. In studying each area, consideration must be given to whether a particular estuarine area should be acquired by the Federal Government or by the States, or whether such areas can be appropriately and effectively preserved through other protective measures. These studies will be coordinated with the various plans prepared or being developed for the area, State, or river basin in which an estuary is located. A total of $4.5 million is authorized by the bill for this study over a 5-year period. This sum would be in addition to the sum authorized by the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966 for a pollution study of these estuaries. 6. The bill requires that the Secretary submit to the Congress the results of the inventory annually. This report will also include the Secretary's recommendations relative to the designation of some estuarine areas for Federal acquisition. Before the Secretary can acquire any land in these areas, Congress must affirm the Secretary's designation by Act of Congress and authorize appropriations for such acquisition. A similar approach is followed in the case of wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act. 7. The bill prohibits the Secretary from acquiring with appropriated funds any lands, waters, or interests therein owned by a State or a political subdivision thereof which are adequately protected and preserved by a State in the exercise of its regulatory powers. This limitation would also apply to any shellfish beds owned by a State, or a political subdivision thereof. 8. The bill authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements with a State or political subdivision thereof for the permanent management by him of any estuarine area owned by the State or political subdivision. Such area would be designated as a national estuarine area without further action by the Congress. Under the agreement, the Secretary and the State would be required to share equally in the development costs. The bill authorizes the Secretary to acquire up to 1,000 acres of private land within any estuarine area covered by such an agreement where such property is needed to develop or protect the area adequately without further authorization by the Congress. This authority would be used to acquire inholdings in most cases. In the case of national estuarine areas administered under an agreement, the bill provides that, since these are not federally owned areas, State hunting and fishing laws and regulations will be applicable. |