It is a well-known fact, as Mr. Starlund pointed out to me, that salmon originating in the State of California are caught by Washington sport and commercial fishermen. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that one-half of the salmon spawned in California streams are landed by commercial fishermen off Oregon and Washington.

I am, therefore, naturally interested in the implementation of this bill, as another means to offset salmon losses caused by other water development plans on the Pacific coast. I urge its approval.

Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. The committee will hear next Mr. Max Edwards, assistant to the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Edwards, I note you are accompanied by Mr. Tunison, Mr. Hagen, and Mr. Barnaby. You are here to present the views of the Department?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. With your permission, I will ask these gentlemen to join me at the witness table.

Mr. DINGELL. They certainly may. They are most welcome. I assume you will choose to make your remarks first with regard to H.R. 11343 and other identical bills.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. You are certainly most welcome. The committee will be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF MAX N. EDWARDS, ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY AND LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY A. V. TUNISON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; WILLIAM HAGEN, CHIEF, BRANCH OF FISH HATCHERIES; AND J. T. BARNABY, ACTING CHIEF, DIVISION OF SPORT FISHERIES, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am extremely pleased to appear before you this morning in support of bills "To direct the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a salmon and steelhead development program in California."

On August 16 of this year, our Department submitted a report on the subject bills, recommending enactment of the proposed legislation with appropriate amendments. The report, we feel, clearly states the problem and outlines measures which must be taken now to preserve the salmon and steelhead resources in the State of California and the surrounding Pacific area.

The anadromous salmon and trout resources of California have been depleted becuase of man's extensive development and progress. Mining, railroad and highway construction, stream pollution, and the great need for water have been contributing factors to rapidly diminishing spawning areas. Perhaps these are the growing pains of a rich and magnificent country, but experience has taught us that more careful planning and better conservation practices might have been employed to protect the fish without impeding agricultural and industrial growth. This growth will continue at an accelerated rate and the demand for water development projects is bound to increase proportionately.

Many of the rivers of California have obvious and inherent values for maintaining and increasing the production of anadromous salmon and trout. Any water development program for these vital streams poses a real threat to these fish and should be resolved with foresight and imagination in the initial planning stages. But the problems we are anxious to resolve go well beyond the State of California because saving and enhancing the spawning areas of these salmon and trout are of true national and international significance.

The economic values to be protected and enhanced are evident. These streams of California's Central Valley contribute some 15 million pounds of Pacific salmon caught in the commercial fishing industry, about one-half of which are taken off the coasts and in the estuaries of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and southern Alaska. Without considering the tremendous recreation values anadromous fish afford the sports fishermen, it is significant that this year the region's economy will be bolstered by over $172 million spent in pursuit of salmon, steelhead, shad, and striped bass.

A broad, flexible program is needed today for the protection and development of this migratory fishery resource in order to properly offset the total impact of existing, authorized and proposed Federal and non-Federal water projects. The fish problem is quite simply one of how best to provide adequate waterflows, to retain essential spawning areas or provide alternate hatchery production, to develop new spawning channels and to protect migrant fish from loss in turbines and irrigation diversions. The problem is obviously difficult, but not insurmountable. In cooperation with the State of California the Department of the Interior can effectively implement the program envisioned in this legislative proposal so that it will provide lasting benefits to the fishing interests of the whole region. And of equal importance, this program can be developed without sacrificing existing water commitments and with full recognition of present interests. The need for this legislation is apparent and its enactment will be a triumph for conservation. I urge that you give it favorable consideration, and I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before the subcommittee.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Hagen?

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Edwards, do you know of any other programs which in effect would be a precedent for this program?

Mr. EDWARDS. The Mitchell Act of 1938, along the lines of which this very legislation is patterned, did a great deal to protect this particular resource in the Columbia River Basin. I think it is unfortunate that this type of program has not been heretofore carried out. Mr. HAGEN. It was carried out in the Columbia River Basin? Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, and I think it has been quite successful there. Mr. HAGEN. What is visualized here, a mixed Federal and State expenditure or exclusive Federal expenditure?

Mr. EDWARDS. No, not exclusively Federal expenditure. I think it would depend upon the circumstances and the result of studies, but certainly it is anticipated that there would be State participation in this program.

Mr. HAGEN. Do you have any statistics on the decline of the salmon fishery, that part derived from the California spawning areas?

Mr. EDWARDS. I do not have them, but I think Mr. Hagen here might be able to give you a well-rounded answer.

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. May we defer that to Mr. Ripley, who will testify later? He has the figures on the actual decline of fishery in California.

Mr. HAGEN. But there has been a radical decline?

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. There has been a decline, yes, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. I remember from my experience in the State legislature there was always a great argument about disappearing fish, what caused their disappearance, et cetera.

Mr. EDWARDS. In that connection, I might ask Mr. Barnaby if he has any comments to make on that.

Mr. BARNABY. It is rather difficult to get precise information as to the decline. We know there are declines in many of the areas. As has been pointed out here in regard to another bill before the committee, these runs are cyclical in nature so that in some years they are up and in some years down.

To cite just a few figures, on the count on the Mad River on the north coast of California, as far as Chinook salmon are concerned, in the period 1938 to 1943, for example, the counts were in the vicinity of 1,000 to 3,000 fish. During the last several years the count has been from 129 up to 479. In other words, it has dropped about one-tenth. The same is true at that same place in regard to steelhead. Counts have gone down.

To take another one as an example, at Benbow Dam on the south fork of the Gila River counts in 1938, 1939, and the early forties were in the vicinity of 6,000 to 20,000 Chinook salmon and in recent years it has been down in the 1,000 to 2,000.

On steelhead trout the count in those early years was 17,000 or 18,000 and in recent years it has been down as low as 8,000 to 11,000 and 12,000. It has been dropping again.

To go on to give you a number of instances such as that, I could do that, but to give you a precise figure of the overall decline, it is not possible.

I would like to add this one thing. The thing that has been very pronounced is the decline in the habitat available to anadromous species. That is an indication of what is going to happen in the future because as the habitat for these species is diminished, then it is a prediction that the runs in the future will be diminished. That is what we are apprehensive about.

Mr. HAGEN. I may not be fully informed on the subject, but the streams you mention, I do not recall any major Federal water projects on them.

Mr. BARNABY. No, sir. This program, while it is related to Federal water projects, is an effect of civilization in general in the development of California. We could have given you figures in the Sacramento Valley where there are Federal water developments, but there again these catches of fish are made up of the commercial catch and the sport catch and many catches are made in ocean trolling, so it is hard to get precise figures in order to determine the downward trend, but it is apparent that the reduction in habitat, brought about by Shasta Dam and Folsom Dam and others, constructed in the Central Valley

Mr. HAGEN. The most obvious one is Friant Dam and the drying up of the San Joaquin River.

Mr. BARNABY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. There is approximately a $11 million expenditure contemplated here by the Federal Government.

Mr. EDWARDS. Over a 5-year period.

Mr. HAGEN. How could that be divided between research and providing new spawning grounds and, I understand, some fish hatcheries to supply the fish for the spawning grounds?

Mr. EDWARDS. I will ask Mr. Hagen or Mr. Tunison to answer that in greater detail; but I think it will depend upon what we recognize as the dangers from continued development of these projects. You cannot isolate one project. They all have to be considered, and you have to consider what development will come 50 years hence. I will ask Mr. Hagen to enlarge upon that.

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. Mr. Edwards stated it correctly. We would have to have investigations before knowing what would be exactly spent where. However, we have tentative plans for hatcheries, about one-third of the funds for hatchery construction, roughly that figure. Even there we have not yet determined exactly how many hatcheries will be required. We may be putting in spawning channels. We may request acre-feet of water in dams for fish.

In other words, the expense of the dam may go up somewhat to provide waterflow in streams.

The research to be undertaken is more in the way of investigation to determine just what will be required in the future.

Also, there is the screening of the hundreds of irrigation diversions in the Central Valley particularly. Does that answer your question, sir?

Mr. HAGEN. Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to say one thing: I do not want you to get the idea that this is just a study program. It is just like Congressman Miller told the committee; this is an action program.

Mr. HAGEN. This Mitchell legislation in 1938 or so that you mentioned earlier

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. Recently we had the bill to help out the oyster fisheries. Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir, that is a good analogy.

Mr. TUNISON. If I may, I would like to point out that the Columbia River program started out in 1949 as an action program. It was carried on more or less in that theme and philosophy for a period of 6 or 7 years. We did things that we knew were right and were required. Then came the day when we needed more research. We anticipate that this is something of the nature that will occur here in California. We know certain things now, and then, as times goes on, certainly we will have to have additional studies made of one kind or another. As Mr. Hagen pointed out, we will need surveys to determine exactly where these various things might be done; but we will need research from a number of other bureaus in the Federal GovernmentGeological Survey, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Reclamation, Corps of Engineers. We will need to know their plans and in some cases with some of those agencies very definite engineering help.

Mr. HAGEN. As I understand it, this legislation has the approval of the fish and game departments of all of the Pacific Coast States and possibly Alaska.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. HAGEN. Do you have any comparative figures on what the various Pacific Coast States are spending, themselves, on improving the salmon fisheries?

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. I do not have Oregon and Washington. I know California is contributing, annually, somewhat over $1 million in this same sort of endeavor. The States of Washington and Oregon are undoubtedly are putting in approximately the same amount.

Mr. HAGEN. You say about a million dollars a year, apiece?

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. I would imagine that the States of Washington and Oregon also put in that much.

Mr. HAGEN. Sport fishing is a kind of aesthetic activity compared to commercial fishing, but what do you visualize might be the net dollar returns from sport fishing?

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. It is estimated by our river basins group, with California people, that the value of the sport fishery in California, for anadromous fish, is $17.5 million.

Mr. HAGEN. Is that annual?

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. Annual.

Mr. HAGEN. How about commercial fisheries?

Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. Commercial fishery is valued at approximately $8 million. Fish resulting from production in California streams are taken in the troll fishery primarily and some 15 million pounds are taken up and down the Pacific coast clear to the southern tip of Alaska.

Approximately one-half of that take is off the coast of California and the other half off the coastof Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.

Mr. HAGEN. I will ask one more question:

Why do we select California for this particular type of activity at this time, rather than Oregon, or Washington, or all three together? Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. We have a program in the Columbia River and we still have. It is required because of the many dams being built and going to be built.

The same situation prevails in the California area we speak of. By a matter of geography it happens to fall in California. It is a problem now, and it will be increasing slowly unless something is done about it.

Mr. EDWARDS. As Mr. Hagen pointed out, these streams just happen to lie within the border of California, but the fishery resource itself extends beyond that.

Mr. HAGEN. Fish migrate northward.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes; and they are caught off the coast of southern Alaska and the coast of Washington and Oregon.

Mr. HAGEN. I assume many of the lessons you would learn from research would be applicable anywhere?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. PELLY. No questions.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. One question:

Do I understand, from what you say percentagewise, there is a bigger depletion of this fishery resource in California than in Oregon or Washington?

89571-62- -5