32 



COMMERCIAL FISHERIES REVIEW 



Vol. 28. No. 10 



Rhode Island's Green Acres program of 

 1964 and the Marshland Zoning Law of 1965 

 were designed to reduce the rate of destruc- 

 tion of coastal wetlands. 



New Jersey, under its Green Acres pro- 

 gram, now owns or leases about 90,000 acres 

 of wetlands. 



Not all the protective actions are being 

 taken by towns, counties, and states. There 

 are many bills before Congress. Some seek 

 to help the preservation of specific wetlands 

 and to improve conditions on entire rivers. 

 Another would provide for a nationwide study 

 of coastal wetlands, looking toward a Federal 

 system of preserved estuaries. All these 

 moves are sparked by forward-looking indi- 

 viduals, in and out of government, and are 

 backed by groups of citizen activists and a 

 growing mass of public opinion. Let us cross 

 the continent for a look at one such recent ac- 

 tion. 



In response to a public need for a demo- 

 cratically constituted, politically responsible 

 body to see that San Francisco Bay and its 

 shoreline were analyzed, planned, and regu- 

 lated. Senate Bill 309 was passed and ap- 

 proved by Governor Brown of California in 

 July 1965, authorizing the San Francisco Bay 

 Conservation and Development Commission. 

 The Commission consists of representatives 

 of two Federal agencies, five State agencies, 

 nine counties, three representatives of cities, 

 and seven from the public at large. The Com- 

 mission is charged with studying all aspects 

 of the bay-area problem, including proposed 

 new uses, looking toward- the preparation by 

 1969 of a comprehensive and enforceable plan 

 for the conservation of the water of San Fran- 

 cisco Bay and the development of its shore- 

 line. During the time of the study and prepa- 

 ration of the plan, the Commission is empow- 

 ered to issue or deny permits, after public 

 hearings, for any proposed project that in- 

 volves dredging and filling. 



The California Legislature found that the 

 uncoordinated and haphazard way in which 

 San Francisco Bay was being filled threaten- 

 ed the welfare of present and future residents. 

 Furthermore, in the absence of such a Com- 

 mission, there was no mechanism for evalu- 

 ating the individual projects of cities and 

 counties or of coordinating the actions of the 

 several units of local government. The re- 

 sult was that navigation was being restricted, 

 there was destruction of feeding and breeding 



habitat of fish and wildlife, and there were 

 adverse effects on the quality of the water 

 and even on the air. 



Role of Corps of Engineers 



Let us now look at the U. S. Army Corps 

 of Engineers. The civil functions of the De- 

 partment of the Army, acting through the 

 Corps of Engineers, include the execution, 

 operation, maintenance, and control of river 

 and harbor and flood -control improvements 

 authorized by law, and the administration of 

 laws for the protection and preservation of 

 navigation and navigable waters of the United 

 States. In its brochure on permits for work 

 in navigable waters, the Corps states clearly 

 that "the decision as to whether a permit will 

 be issued must rest primarily upon the effect 

 of the proposed work on navigation. , , . 



"Whenever the waters of any stream or 

 other body of water are proposed to be im- 

 pounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or 

 the stream or other body of water otherwise 

 controlled or modified for any purpose what- 

 ever. . .the District Engineer will coordinate 

 applications for permits to authorize such 

 work with the Regional Director, U. S. Fish 

 and Wildlife Service, and the head of the 

 agency exercising administration over the 

 fish and wildlife resources in the particular 

 state wherein the proposed work will be per- 

 formed to obtain their views with respect to 

 the prevention of loss and damage to fish and 

 wildlife resources. Should these agencies in- 

 dicate that the proposed work will be harmful 

 to fish and wildlife, their views will be made 

 known to the applicant and an effort made to 

 reach a compromise solution." 



The Corps is not required to do anything 

 about the recommendations of these agencies 

 but consider them and transmit their views 

 to the applicant. 



One of the early Federal recognitions of 

 the consequences for certain aquatic natural 

 resource values by construction, such as 

 dams, was a 1934 Act to promote the conser- 

 vation of wildlife, fish and game. This Act 

 was amended and strengthened in 1946, and 

 further amended in 1958 when it was titled 

 "The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act." 

 These actions resulted because of the adverse 

 effects on fish and wildlife of the single -pur- 

 pose water control and development works 

 that were being built in rapid sequence. 



