291 



in 1959 showed a reduction of more than 1,300 acres, leaving a total 

 of 19,200 acres. Of the high- and moderate-value areas 12,600 acres 

 remained, which represents a 3-percent loss in the more valuable 

 tidal marsh during the 5-year period, a reduction in total area of 

 about 6 percent. However, this is not the complete picture. 



While more than 3 percent of the tidal marshes were completely 

 or partially destroyed during this 5-year period, their value for water- 

 fowl was not reviewed in 1959 or 1964, and much of the area that 

 was of high or moderate value in 1954 may have been reduced in 

 quality making the loss more severe than that recorded. 



The total loss of tidal marsh tabulated in the 1954 and 1959 surveys 

 is about 6 percent for the 5-year period. The loss for the 5 years 1959 

 to 1964 is about 7 percent. 



The data on causes of marsh destruction do not fall into well- 

 defined categories. Dredging for a marina and placing the fill on 

 adjoining marsh represent two classes of destruction, but the figures 

 do not separate them. Similarly, there are little data on the use to 

 which filled areas are put — in housing, factories, boat storage, dumps. 

 Major causes of this loss involved miscellaneous fill (48 percent) ; 

 waste disposal (14 percent) ; roads and parking (9 percent) ; indus- 

 try (7 percent) ; marinas (6 percent) ; housing (5 percent) ; recrea- 

 tional developments (3 percent) ; and schools (1 percent). 



The loss of these marshlands can only be partly justified as needed 

 for our economic growth and the demand of a growing population. 

 Much of it has been the permianent destruction of an irreplaceable na- 

 tura;l resource for a very temporary economic advantage. The accumu- 

 lative effect has been changed in the ecology of the Connecticut shore- 

 line with the decline of formerly abundant species of fish and shellfish 

 as well as the total disappearance of certain species of shell and finfiish 

 in specific areas. 



DAMAGE TO FISH AND WILDLIFE 



GhesapeaJce Bay 



At tlhe request of the Federal Water Pollution Control Admini- 

 stration the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife conducted a study 

 of "Fish and Wildlife Resources as related to Water Pollution" in the 

 Chesapeake Bay area. The report was issued in 1968 ; its results are 

 summarized here. 



The study area covered by biological considerations in this report 

 included Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, except the Susquehanna 

 River Basin. Tliis area includes the major drainages of the James, 

 Rappannock-York, and Potomac Rivers as well as Chesapeake Bay 

 and its minor tributaries. These drainages encompass virtually all of 

 Maryland, a sizable portion of Virginia, and small segments of Dela- 

 ware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. 



To evaluate the relative effect of pollution on fish and wildlife re- 

 sources, the total resource potential under polluted conditions was 

 compared with what would be available if pollution were eliminated. 

 These resource potentials, both with and without pollution, were then 

 compared to the expected user demand to determine their relative avail- 

 aibility under both conditions. Specific data on present, future, or pro- 

 jected conditions are often minimal or lacking. Therefore, data analysis 



