Table 3 

 LOSS OF WILDLIFE AND NUTRIENT AREAS 



Acres of estuaries 



Area of Area lost by 



Per CGnt 



Total area important dredging 



State (thousands) habitat and filling 



(thousands) (thousands) 



Alabama 530 133 2 1.5 



Alaska 11,023 574 1 .2 



California 552 382 256 67.0 



Connecticut 32 20 2 10.3 



Delaware 396 152 9 5.6 



Florida 1,051 796 60 7.5 



Georgia 171 125 1 .6 



Louisiana 3,545 2,077 65 3.1 



Maine 39 15 1 6.5 



Maryland 1,406 376 1 .3 



Massachusetts 207 31 2 6.5 



Michigan' 152 152 4 2.3 



Mississippi 251 76 2 2.2 



New Hampshire 12 10 1 10.0 



NewJersey 778 411 54 13.1 



New York 377 133 20 15.0 



New York State (Great Lakes) . 49 49 1 1.2 



North Carolina 2,207 794 8 1.0 



Ohio' 37 37 ^ .3 



Oregon 58 20 1 3.5 



Pennsylvania' 5 5 ^ 2.0 



Rhode Island 95 15 1 6.1 



South Carolina 428 269 4 1.6 



Texas 1,344 828 68 8.2 



Virginia 1,670 428 2 .6 



Washington 194 96 4 4.5 



Wisconsin' 11 11 ^ .0 



Total 26,618 7,988 569 7.1 



Source: Fish and Wildlife Service. 



In Great Lakes only shoals (areas less than 6 feet deep) were considered as estuaries. 

 Less than 500 acres. 



necessary to preserve and protect marine fish- areas lost w^ere shellfish grounds. Of 22 seacoast 



eries." States, loss of important habitat was reported for 



A significant part of the problem in destruction oysters and crabs in 18, clams in 14 and shrimp in 



of coastal habitats is the loss or restriction of sport 10. 



or commercial shellfishing due to shorelands devel- Early maps of the San Francisco Bay Area show 



opment or pollution. A current survey^ ° of nearly all shoal waters producing oysters and 



shoreUne uses by coastal states showed the greatest clams. Recent studies^ ' estimate 175,000 acres of 



20, , , ^ „ „ , „ . . „ . . potential oyster bottom remain, including areas 

 John I. Thompson & Co., .4 Perspective of Regional 



and State Marine Environmental Activities, contract ~ 



report to the Institute of Public Administration, February Report of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and 



1968. Development Commission, 1968. 



III-38 



