In summary, gentlemen, California's Department of Fish and Game is spending more than $1 million every year in an attempt to solve the problems facing its salmon, steelhead, and other anadromous fishery resources. Each year the fishermen of Oregon, Washington, and California catch more than 15 million pounds of salmon raised in California streams. They share the $25 million that these fish are worth to the commercial and sports fisheries. These fish contribute to the health, welfare, and the food production of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 11343 and 11356 offer a fighting chance for the survival of the salmon. It is their last chance. They spawn only once in their lifetime and if we lose these last few miles of suitable spawning grounds, gentlemen, we have lost the race. Thank you. I would like to show you this map to give you a visual impression of the number of the water projects we are dealing with in the salmon's habitat. This is the historic salmon habitat in California extending from down here up to this area [indicating] with the coastal stream areas here. Each of these colored markings you see on the map is a water project, either in development, or developed, or the consideration stage, and in an area to affect the production of the anadromous fish. You can see the multitude of things happening throughout the State in the development of these water resources that will affect, and continue to affect, the salmon and the steelhead. Mr. PELLY. Will you show where the source of the water is that is being taken on this great project to the north? Mr. RIPLEY. Some will be through here and diverted through this tunnel, back into this system, down through here to this delta project [indicating] and down into southern California. It will give almost a complete reversal of the water regime of the rivers. Unless proper consideration is given at the time of the process of planning, it will be difficult after these projects are solidified to make the necessary plans for the salmon. We can have both the water and the salmon. Heavens knows we need the water in California because we have a terrific problem in supplying water for industry and agriculture and all the other things. But what I am trying to point out here is, with proper consideration we can have both the salmon and the water. We are down to about the last 300 miles of suitable spawning area for king salmon. This does not limit some of the other areas that can be developed with proper consideration that can also produce salmon. Mr. PELLY. Who owns the land on which these gravel beds exist? Is that Federal land? Mr. RIPLEY. Some of the lands are Federal, some State, and some private property. In California, the rivers that historically had navigation on them are declared to be public property and the ground underneath them are public property and the spawning beds to some extent are preserved insofar as that is concerned. Mr. PELLY. Such a high percentage of all the areas of Western States is federally owned. Therefore, I was curious. Mr. RIPLEY. Much of the land in this area is all Federal property. The more desirable lands down in this area, unfortunately, are not. There are considerations that can be given to the salmon in the planning of these projects that will permit a maintenance of the runs, either through hatcheries, spawning channels, or diversion of water into other streams. We have a stream down about here called Clear Creek. It is a beautiful salmon spawning bed but there is no water in it. If we could have planned out of one of these operations a diversion of, say, a few hundred second-feet of water over those beds during the time the salmon need it, we could produce perhaps thousands and thousands of salmon. Mr. GROSS. What prevents that diversion of water? Mr. RIPLEY. One of the things is consideration of the mitigation of some of the effects of the plan that is being developed here. We only have 15 people on our staff to handle all the salmon. They are involved with more than just the water projects. Mr. GROSS. You say that the fishermen of Washington and Oregon are getting your salmon now? Mr. RIPLEY. They are sharing the salmon. Mr. GROSS. They are unduly sharing the salmon? Mr. RIPLEY. No; not unduly. Mr. GROSS. They are getting your salmon, some of them? Mr. RIPLEY. That is true. Mr. GROSS. I wonder if you could not go to the States of Washington and Oregon and get some help on this rather than the Federal Government, since they seem to be participating in the take? Mr. RIPLEY. One of the areas of development, of course, is the Federal water development in this area. These are the things causing our problems. Mr. GROSS. I did not realize we were going to get into salmon with these projects. I knew we were into irrigation and cheap hydropower for this western area, and a few other things. I did not realize we were going to have to subsidize the propagation of salmon as a result of these reclamation projects in the West. This opens up a new field to me. Mr. PELLY. As I understand, the commercial fishing boats go down the coast and when the salmon runs are off California they fish there; is that what you are referring to? Mr. RIPLEY. I will have to get into the biological distribution. My field is more biology than this. Mr. GROSS. Do not get too deep into the love life of the salmon. Mr. RIPLEY. These salmon here in California, the king salmon, spawn once in 4 years. They spend very little time in the headwaters here. They migrate out through the Central Valley out through San Francisco Bay, and when they get into the waters of the Pacific ocean, depending on the current and nutrients, the plankton and other things they like to eat, these salmon then migrate up the coast and a portion go up off Washington and a portion off Oregon. The bigger ones seem to go further. The actual fisheries off of Oregon and Washington and British Columbia Mr. PELLY. They come within the 3-mile limit? Mr. RIPLEY. Yes, and some even go into the streams and turn around again. Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. Here is another map. This is the distribution area of the catch of salmon originating in California streams. About 7.5 mililon pounds of the total catch are taken off of California, about 7.5 of the total pounds taken off Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and southern Alaska. Mr. PELLY. How would that compare to Washington and Orefish taken off of California? gon Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. The division would be somewhat the same. Many silvers and chinooks come down this way. Mr. PELLY. Below Fort Bragg there were fleets of California fishing vessels that were going out about 6 to 10 miles at sea, coming back every day, and I was told the run all went up Oregon streams. Mr. RIPLEY. This is the area Mr. Pelly is referring to. Those are essentially the silver salmon. There is a small migration of the king salmon southward. Essentially, the salmon we refer to that are shared in by the California fishery are the silver salmon from the coastal streams along here. Mr. PELLY. It is a matter that concerns all the States? Mr. PELLY. The director of fisheries has a letter in here in support of this, the director from the State of Washington, and at his request I shall put it in the record. Mr. DINGELL. I am concerned here. Is it not true we have problems all up and down the Pacific coastwe have them in Washington and Oregon. The problems are not radically dissimilar in Washington and Oregon with regard to pollution and diversion, and so forth. I do not know what the specific problems the States of Washington and Oregon are facing. I know in the State of California it is critical. Historically, this area of California probably-and we do not have very many records-but prior to the time of man's modification of our environment, through development of dams, agricultural practices and other things, we probably had 12 million to 2 million spawning fish in this area that produced as much as 30 million pounds of fish here. Mr. DINGELL. How many do you figure you have now? Mr. RIPLEY. Year before last we went down to less than 150,000 spawning fish. We figure with the environment we have now left in California, the 300 miles of spawning stream, we need about 500,000 spawning fish to maintain the run. Year before last we were down to about 150,000 fish. The problem is immediate. Each year, as they add more and more of these water projects that take away the little bit left we have of the spawning area, the problem becomes more critical. We have the other problems such as pollution and irrigation diversion and siltation and agricultural chemicals and so forth that become what the scientists call a synergistic problem. Each thing acts upon the next thing in greater proportion. Mr. DINGELL. Are you aware of the Coordination Act? Mr. RIPLEY. Yes. Mr. DINGELL. You discussed the problem of new Federal impound ments. As I read the language of the Coordination Act, it says specifically that in each of these Federal water projects action is to be taken not only to maintain, but to enhance the resource where it has an impact on fish and wildlife. Is that not correct? Mr. RIPLEY. That is my interpretation. Mr. PELLY. Is your agency utilizing this statute? Mr. RIPLEY. We are utilizing it to the extent we can. The only staff available within this area to consider this problem-I do not think there are over 10 people to do this job, and with this many projects, over 500, the fiscal processing running through each one of these pieces of paper is almost insurmountable. Mr. DINGELL. I know we have a great many of these projects. I had to take the Corps of Engineers into tow and we had to make them understand that the act means what it says. We had to do that in the State of Michigan, to see that the projects acually did conform to the rigid requirements of the act. Have you done anything of this sort? Mr. RIPLEY. We have been working very assiduously on this problem for several years. Mr. DINGELL. Have you done everything you could or should do? Mr. RIPLEY. We have done everything we possibly can. Mr. DINGELL. I am anxious to help you on this bill, but I am anxious to see you carry your own end of the stick and that you do not expect the Federal Government to bail you out of your problems. You should use all your tools. Your State game and fish commission should scrutinize the Coordination Act to see to it you are utilizing it to the fullest to protect your own resources. I think this is something you should look into. I am not able to say on the basis of your testimony you are not doing this, but it appears to me there is a question as to whether or not you are using the act. Mr. RIPLEY. I wonder if I could perhaps give a bit of explanation. One of the things that the Department has done recently in attempting to do this was to set up a special water projects branch which is specifically designed to handle these water project problems. This branch, combined with the other activities of the Department, contributes to this over $1 million we are spending on salmon problems. Mr. DINGELL. What is the Fish and Wildlife doing about the Coordination Act? Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. On any Federal project, we get the Corps. of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation and insist, together with the States, upon certain actions to preserve, in an attempt to enhance runs of salmon or other fish. Mr. DINGELL. It appears to me on the basis of testimony that these new projects are not being managed to provide additional streamflow over the spawning beds. According to the testimony from the gentleman here, it seems you are not doing what you should do. Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. Our primary problem was Shasta. That cut off hundreds and hundreds of miles of spawning stream. Mr. DINGELL. Did you not take into consideration the requirements of the Coordination Act? Do you not compel the other agencies of the Government to adhere to that? Mr. WILLIAM HAGEN. We could not stop the dam. It was not feasible to put fish ladders over Shasta. We could not get the young fish downstream. Therefore, we have an arrangement with the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State of California participates, in which they release certain quantities of water at the critical times for the spawning of salmon below Shasta Dam. This is one of the few places in the country where a dam has in fact benefited the area below the dam for spawning, although it did cut out a lot of spawning area abovehundreds of miles. We do get the releases, and we do have good spawning results below Shasta Dam. Because it is a high dam, it has deep water and we get cool water, whereas, prior to the time of the dam, most of the salmon were running farther upstream. There is coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation in this. They do release the waters for us. Mr. DINGELL. How about the other 500 projects? Mr. RIPLEY. Some are completed projects. I think one of the projects completed before the act and put into effect was Friant. Mr. DINGELL. The Coordination Act applied to projects either in the process of completion or to those which were authorized. Mr. RIPLEY. And when Friant was put in, I forget the exact year, the Friant Dam effectively cut all the water in the San Joaquin watershed that formerly supplied the San Joaquin segment of the salmon runs. At the high peak of the runs in this river, we used to have about 55,000 or 56,000 spawning salmon in this stream. We no longer have any segment of that run. The San Joaquin is completely dry in its lower segment. All the water has been diverted south. There are no facilities or provisions made for the preservation of this run of fish. We spent weeks and weeks on a rehearing of this just recently. No water was granted for the purpose of rehabilitating the runs. This is where some benefit can come where damage has been done by these projects. Mr. DINGELL. Have you been consulted in the establishment of a plan that will be carried out if this legislation becomes law? Mr. RIPLEY. Yes, we have. Mr. DINGELL. Have you been in on the planning? Mr. RIPLEY. We work closely with the people in the Department of Interior. Mr. DINGELL. We have heard the program is mostly research. You have a good idea of what is needed. Mr. RIPLEY. I would say the research aspect of it has been excessively dwelt upon. Actually, what it amounts to, it is not research, but biological engineering. With each of the projects being developed, certain types of data have to be accumulated-how much water will be available, how much we can expect, the amount of area this water will cover on the spawning grounds, how many fish can be expected to be handled. This is the thing that would be done. This would be done to plan the specific type of structures that would be best engineered biologically to handle the maximum number of salmon with the minimum amount of water and the minimum costs involved. Mr. DINGELL. Is this bill aimed at handling the salmon conservation aspects of these 500 water projects? Mr. RIPLEY. Not of the 500, but of the Central Valley area. It would be for this general area. Also, some of the ones up on the north coast. Mr. DINGELL. What percentage of this is devoted to biological engineering with regard to the Federal water projects? |