DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of June 21, 1962, for a report on H.R. 11343, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a salmon and steelhead development program in California. We endorse action necessary to preserve and develop the salmon and steelhead trout and other fishery resources of the streams included in this bill. However, we would object to enactment of H.R. 11343 unless it is amended along the lines hereinafter discussed. H.R. 11343 would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and in cooperation with the California Fish and Game Commission, to take such action as is necessary to preserve and develop the salmon and steelhead trout and other fishery resources of the streams entering the Pacific Ocean from the State of California. Activities would include, but not be limited to, conducting investigations and engineering and biological surveys and research; constructing, installing, and maintaining devices and structures for improving feeding and spawning conditions, protecting migratory fish, and facilitating their migration; establishing, operating, and maintaining fish-cultural stations; and acquiring lands and interests by purchase, lease, or donation. The headwaters of several of the salmon and steelhead trout and other fishing streams entering the Pacific Ocean from the State of California are within the national forests under the jurisdiction of this Department. It is likely that some of the activities which the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to study and, if found necessary, to construct, would be on national forest lands. The Department of Agriculture has adequate authority to carry out fishery constrvation programs within the national forests. Under the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act (74 Stat. 215), the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to administer the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of their several products and services, including fish, and is authorized to cooperate with State and local agencies in national forest development. The need for improvement and development of fish and wildlife habitat resources on the national forests is recognized in the development program for the national forests. This program embraces all of the renewable resources of the national forest system-water, timber, recreation, forage, and fish and wildlife habitat. Fishery engineering studies and surveys and desirable fish structural or vegetative manipulation projects on national forest lands are frequently carried out by the fish and game departments of the respective States in which the national forests are located. Such projects are initiated and conducted with the approval and permission of this Department. Coordinated land-use practices to assure a maximum return of the varied goods and services from these national forest lands can best be attained if all planning and development has the prior approval of the Department having primary jurisdiction. This is the concept under which existing programs have been successful. We believe that any planned action within the national forests to preserve and develop fishery resources of the streams entering the Pacific Ocean from the State of California should be subject to this same review and prior approval by this Department. We recommend that the bill be amended to provide that the Secretary of the Interior be required to carry out fishery conservation development activities on national forest lands only with the approval and consent of the Department of Agriculture. This would eliminate the difficulties and uncoordinated planning which might arise as a result of the dual authority for fishery work on the national forests. This may be accomplished as follows: Add a new section 3. "Section 3. Any development activity under section 2 of this act to be per formed on national forest lands shall be initiated only with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture." Renumber present section 3 to section 4. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, 89571-62 ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D.C., August 23, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 11343, 87th Congress, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a salmon and steelhead development program in California. The Department of the Army has been assigned responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense on this bill. This bill would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, to undertake a salmon and steelhead trout preservation and development program in California in cooperation with the California Fish and Game Commission. The Secretary would be authorized to conduct investigations, surveys and research to facilitate the program and to construct, install and maintain devices and structures, including fish-cultural stations, necessary to achieve the objectives of the bill. The objectives of this bill are consistent with existing legislation providing authorities exercised by the Department of the Interior in this field. The Department of the Army supports the objectives of H.R. 11343, subject to the comment and recommendation below. With respect to the authority which would be granted to the Secretary of the Interior under section 2 of the bill "To construct, install and maintain devices and structures *** etc.," the Department of the Army interprets this provision as not being intended to grant authority for unilateral incorporation of such features as an integral part of water control structures constructed, operated or maintained by the Corps of Engineers in the State of California. Section 1 of the bill could be interpreted as granting a broad authority overriding other uses to which the waters of the streams of the area could be put. In order to make it clear that such is not intended, this Department recommends that the bill be revised by adding the following sentence at the end of section 1: "The authority granted herein shall be exercised in a manner consistent with the other purposes for which the streams may be used with a view to protecting other needs of the area." The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, CYRUS R. VANCE, Secretary of the Army. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION REPORT ON H.R. 11343, 87TH CONGRESS AUGUST 24, 1962. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study of the fishery resources of California streams in cooperation with that State, and would authorize the appropriation of funds necessary to carry out such a study and put into effect appropriate measures for the conservation and development of those resources. Section 2, among other things, would give the Secretary of the Interior authority "(2) to construct, install, and maintain devices and structures necessary for the improvement of feeding and spawning conditions for fish, for the protection of migratory fish, and for facilitating the migration of fish ;”. If enacted, the bill would be applicable to all water power projects in California, including those licensed by this Commission under the Federal Power Act. In this connection, we believe it should be pointed out that this legislation would be consistent with the terms of an F.P.C. license article agreed upon during the past year in conferences between representatives of the Federal Power Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior. This article, now being included as a standard provision in hydroelectric licenses issued by the Commission, reads as follows: "Article. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project, to construct fish handling facilities at its expense, the Licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use, free of cost, such of Licensee's lands and interests in lands, reservoirs, waterways and project works as may be reasonably required to complete such fish handling facilities or such improvements thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing the Licensee shall modify the project operation as may be prescribed by the Commission, consistent with the primary purpose of the project, in order to permit the maintenance and operation of the fish handling facilities constructed or improved by the United States under the provision of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to place any obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish handling facilities or to relieve the Licensee of any obligation under this license." This legislation would enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through its Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, to provide such additional fish facilities as many be deemed desirable in connection with existing and proposed projects located in the State of California, including those authorized by licenses which contain the above article. Accordingly, the Commission offers no objection to enactment of the bill. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, By JOSEPH C. SWIDLER, Chairman. Mr. DINGELL. How many of our colleagues are here who are interested in this particular measure? I notice Mr. Johnson of California and Mr. Clem Miller and Mr. Hagen, who is a member of the committee. The Chair will hear our friend and colleague, Mr. Clem Miller, author of H.R. 11356. I see you have a member of your staff. He may sit beside you if you so desire. STATEMENT OF HON. CLEM MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. MILLER. I know it is standard operating procedure for Members of Congress to thank the chairman for listening to what we have to say. I wish to emphasize my thanks comes from the bottom of my heart, realizing the closeness to the end of this session and the difficulty in wrapping up matters which have long been pending before this committee, so I wish to extend my most heartfelt thanks for your courtesy in hearing us today on this matter which is of great concern to us in California. I have a perpared statement. Listening to the colloquy between the chairman and Mr. Hagen, I would request I might be permitted to adduce additional testimony if it is required in the light of the developments of the hearing. Mr. DINGELL. Without objection. Mr. MILLER. I have a statement of the Honorable Jeffery Cohelan of California, who has introduced a companion measure, which I would request might be received in evidence. The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JEFFERY COHELAN Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to state my vigorous support for a measure which I have joined several of my colleagues in introducing a measure which would initiate an urgently needed salmon and steelhead development program in California. Mr. Chairman, salmon, steelhead trout, striped bass, and other varities of fishes are dependent upon the streams of northern California for reproduction. This is not merely a California matter, however. It is a matter of national, and even international importance. It is of such importance because the salmon, for example, returning to the streams of California are taken in commercial and sport fishing off the coasts of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, as well as California. In its comprehensive report, the U.S. Department of the Interior has estimated that even at dockside prices, "the value of the total commercial catch is in excess of $8 million annually for the Central Valley contribution alone." "During the past 30 years," the report continues, "sport fishing for salmon and steelhead has increased in importance. It is estimated that the net economic benefits to the region from sportsmen's expenditures in fishing for salmon, steelhead, shad, and striped bass is about $17.5 million a year." This is obviously a significant economic and recreational resource. It is a a resource, however, which is in danger because of the many multipurpose dams which have been constructed in northern California to make use of the plentiful water resources. Some of these dams have been constructed by the Federal Government. Others have been licensed by the Federal Power Commission, and still additional dams will be needed in the future to meet contemplated water-use programs. If we are to prevent the piecemeal, and possible eventual destruction of this valuable fishery resource, a resource which is dependent upon the streams for spawning, we must take early action. We must plan now for the fishes as well as for the dams. Such planning would be provided, Mr. Chairman, by this legislation now before your committee. This legislation would implement a comprehensive program worked out over the last 3 years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. It is the first total program devised to preserve this vanishing wealth-producing resource. It is, in brief, a constructive measure which will pay rich dividends in future years, and I urge that it be approved and enacted at this session of the Congress. Mr. MILLER. I have discussed this matter with the Honorable John Moss, also of California, who has asked me to signify his ardent support for this legislation and its requirement for the propagation and development of salmon in California and in the entire West as well. Not only is the propagation from the point of view of our California streams, but since all these anadromous fish find their way into the Pacific Ocean, the benefits accrue to all of us who have territory along the Pacific coast. The Honorable John Moss has asked that I signify his support for this legislation. I would like merely, if I may, to address myself very simply to several cardinal points which have been raised. One is that this represents some departure from our ordinary Federal jurisdiction, our Federal authority. I would like to say the Columbia Basin program in its fullest form expresses the use of this device to enhance a resource, a natural resource of great commercial and sport value to all of us on the Pacific coast. I might say a word in connection with sports fishing. I know that word connotes pressure and we sometimes feel the Federal involvement should not go to something of this kind. In my congressional districts, and in the districts of many of us in California, it is not for its pleasurable aspect we support it, but sports fishing is a tremendous business which a great number of our constituents are engaged in. Its success and prosperity is directly dependent on the natural resources, and therefore sports fishing to us is not a luxury, it is not a recreation, it is our life's blood in an economic sense. For that reason we are supporting it. We feel this legislation falls into the category which the Columbia River program has been the best recent expression. The second point I wish to emphasize is this program will cost about 50 percent of what the Columbia River program cost us. It is estimated that the Columbia River program, which has been of tremendous importance in all our anadromous fishing industry cost around $25 million. The estimated cost of this program is approximately $11.5 million over a 5-year period. When one considers that the annual catch of these fish is in the vicinity of $25 million, and that this resource is fast disappearing and is in decline, one can certainly understand the idea that some resuscitation must be effected or we will witness the reduction of this fishing to a museum species, to the dodo of the fish world and a museum specimen rather than a living creature that can be caught for commercial and other purposes by millions and millions of Americans and add real economic strength to the economic base of the entire west coast. The final point I wish to emphasize is the fact while we have a program which is definite, which is secure, which has been well laid out, we are perfectly prepared to admit this may be subject to change and development as we go along. There has been frequently in the past some suspicion that hatcheries and hatchery programs may not be the best way to propagate our fish, and particularly anadromous fish. We recognize this, and simply because our program presently calls for hatchery construction, as we obtain the results of research we feel this program offers enough flexibility to change to other means and other ways of developing it. I might say this has been under consideration by the State of California for better than a decade. This bill is actually the fruit of a decade's cooperation between the State government of California, the States of Washington and Oregon as well, and therefore it recommends itself to us on that basis as well as the others. I know there are many people, many Members of Congress who view California as the land of milk and honey where all things accrue, but due to the tremendous pressures of population there have been great efforts by the State to enhance the salmon and to develop it to the breaking point, and there simply no longer are any resources to handle this problem. So important has it been regarded by the State they have overobligated themselves in this field. I say, therefore, we have ample justification for the Federal responsibility and the Federal authority for going ahead with this program with the full realization that we have had backup in research by the State of California to provide for this research and to do its share. I might say that the water development in the State of California by the Federal Government, and by other agencies, has been of a nature we have not been able to hold our own in salmon, and it is a declining industry. With this legislation, and with its passage, we can see a declining industry transformed into an advancing industry, and we can see hope for the salmon industry and the anadromous fish on the entire west coast. That completes my remarks. As I indicated earlier, I would appreciate if the occasion arises, and if the record is open for the 5 days as specified by the chairman, I might be permitted to adduce additional information. Mr. LENNON. Thank you for a fine statement. Mr. PELLY. Before I ask a question, I would like to say I share the interest of Mr. Miller in preserving our salmon runs. You used the figure of $25 million. Is that the value of the annual take of salmon in California? Mr. MILLER. That is the figure that I used, $25 million. |