Mr. CHILSON. That is correct. We will make our requests through the Bureau of the Budget for the funds year by year to carry out the purposes of this act. Mr. DINGELL. Let me ask you the next question. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Would the gentleman yield before you get off that particular subject? Mr. DINGELL. I would be glad to yield. Mr. TOLLEFSON. You testified that you have been working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers already in coordinating your programs with theirs. What I am trying to get at is this: Actually this bill does not call for the expenditure of any great amount of money in addition to what you have already been spending; is that so? Mr. CHILSON. That is essentially correct because all we spend under the authority of this bill is investigative money and we have been making investigations and the way we have been making them heretofore with the Corps of Engineers is that they transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Department the funds to make investigations of their projects. I do not want to say that that has been unworkable, but it offers some difficulties and we believe, and the Bureau of the Budget agrees with us, that it is more proper that the Fish and Wildlife Service apply to the Federal Government for appropriations to carry out these investigative works. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Actually, this bill just makes for a better coordination between your Department and their Department? Mr. CHILSON. That is correct. Mr. TOLLEFSON. You are going to do the same things you have already been doing? Mr. CHILSON. Except in, I think, one important respect. There is this change. Heretofore under the present act, it has been construed that our investigations and the features to be built into present projects so far as the corps is concerned is limited to mitigation of damage. Now, this very frankly recognizes that in addition to the studies to mitigate damage that we may also study and suggest means to enhance the fish and wildlife resource in connection with those water resource projects. Mr. TOLLEFSON. You have done that before, have you not? Mr. CHILSON. I think not. Mr. McBROOM. Generally not. The present act, sir, is written in terms of mitigation of damages, and there has been a lack of clarity as to how far we can go in enhancement. This bill will certainly clear that up. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. Mr. DINGELL. I am always delighted to yield for any questions like that. This is something which has concerned me. There is no section-bysection analysis in the bill. Knowing that we are rather pressed for time, would you like to give us the most brief section-by-section analysis or would you prefer, in the interest of saving time, to submit to us perhaps by letter later a statement telling us what each section does? Mr. CHILSON. We have prepared one for our own use. I have a copy here which we would be glad to submit to the committee. Mr. DINGELL. That would be splendid. Will you put that in the record? Mr. CHILSON. Yes; I will. Mr. MILLER. Is it mimeographed, Mr. Secretary? Mr. CHILSON. Yes. Mr. MILLER. I wonder if we could have some copies sent to us later? We will furnish to the clerk enough copies for each member of the committee. Mr. MILLER. That would be fine. Mr. DINGELL. You might see that we have enough for each member of the full committee when we have our executive meeting. Mr. CHILSON. We will have the clerk tell us how many copies you want and we will furnish them. Mr. BOYKIN. Mr. Secretary, we hope to be able to get this to the full committee very, very early next week, maybe Monday. Mr. CHILSON. I see no reason why I cannot have these up here this afternoon. Mr. BOYKIN. That may be received for the record. (The document referred to follows:) INTERIOR DEPARTMENT'S SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COORDINATION ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1946 (60 STAT. 1080), AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT (68 STAT. 666, 70 STAT. 1088) CONTAINED IN H. R. 12371 The bill restates authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior in the present Coordination Act to cooperate with State and other agencies in activities for the conservation of wildlife resources (which, by definition of sec. 8 of the act, includes, birds, fish, mammals, and all other classes of wild animals and their habitat). Proposed amendment adds the following new language: Spells out, in the opening lines, the importance of fish and wildlife resources, and provides that wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration with other features of Federal water-resource programs. Adds new language to permit the Secretary to accept donations of lands or money to carry out the purposes of the act. This restores a provision in the original Coordination Act of March 10, 1934. Gives the Secretary specific authority to withdraw public lands for public fishing purposes and to provide access across public lands to areas set aside for public fishing or hunting use. The present act contains authority for withdrawal of public lands to provide areas for hunting (shooting) purposes. Section 2 of the revised Coordination Act In general, the amendments in this section would do the following things: Broaden the range of water activities to which the act would apply; spell out clearly the authority to provide for the improvement and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources as well as mitigation of damages to those resources; make the act applicable to projects already authorized; establish specific procedures for the reporting on water-use projects by construction agencies and fish and wildlife agencies; and provide that more orderly consideration be given by construction agencies to conservation recommendations. 1 Sec. 2 of H. R. 12371 would revise the first four sections of the act of August 14, 1946. Subsection 2 (a)2 (1) One of the proposed amendments spells out need for consultation with respect to proposals to control or modify bodies of water as well as to authorized water-use projects. The present act is not clear on this point. New language clarifies the intent of Congress which, in recommending passage of the bill which became the Coordination Act of 1946, made clear that there should be consultation beginning with the earliest stages of project planning. The committee reports pointed out that, at those stages, changes in plans can be made for the benefit of wildlife without increasing costs materially. (2) Makes the act clearly applicable to drainage and navigation projects, whether these are undertaken by the Federal Government itself or under Federal permit or license. (But the act would not be made applicable to drainage projects undertaken by private landowners or non-Federal agencies with Federal financial and technical assistance.) The present act has questionable application to Federal projects which widen and deepen streams for navigation and other purposes, and does not apply to dredging and filling activities conducted under navigation permit issued by the Corps of Engineers. The amendment would make the act applicable to projects which require such permits. (3) Makes it clear, in the opening paragraph of section 2, that water-use projects should be planned to develop and improve fish and wildlife resources, where feasible, as well as to prevent damage to them. Main emphasis of the present act is on damage prevention, and authority for improvement measures has been questioned. Subsection 2 (b) H. R. 12371 specifies that fish and wildlife agencies are expected to recommend means and measures that should be adopted for enhancement as well as mitigation purposes, and that such of these measures as are adopted are to be built into project plans. These recommendations are to be as specific as is practicable. Requires reporting officers of engineering agencies, in preparing project reports, to give full consideration to conservation recommendations. Project reports will include such means and measures for fish and wildlife purposes as are considered justifiable by the engineering agencies. Amendments are designed to apply also to postauthorization engineering reports which contain detailed plans and estimates and which are prepared prior to initiation of construction but which are not submitted beyond the Chief of Engineers and Commissioner of Reclamation, respectively. In many cases, these postauthorization reports provide for significant changes in the authorized project plans, in accordance with latitude normally provided in authorizing legislation. The suggested changes are intended to insure that reports of fish and wildlife agencies are included along with engineering reports-not only those reports which go to Congress, but also those prepared for internal use only. Subsection 2 (c) H. R. 12371 would provide, in the interest of wildlife conservation, for modification of projects to be authorized in the future, and those previously authorized, on which construction is not substantially completed as of the date the amended act becomes law. Makes it clear that modifications and additions on previously authorized projects must be compatible with the purposes for which the project was authorized. It is recognized that proposed changes in the interest of conservation at a project originally authorized primarily for irrigation, for example, must be reasonable and not destroy its justification as a reclamation project. However, the full measure of irrigation or other benefits may have to be modified in some degree in order to accomplish fish and wildlife conservation measures. Spells out that costs of improvement measures for fish and wildlife conservation may be allocated for this purpose and a finding is to be made as to the portions of the costs, if any, to be reimbursed by non-Federal interests. Presumably, the Congress will make decisions on cost sharing on a case basis when considering project reports on proposed projects or supplemental reports on projects already authorized. This subsection provides that, on previously authorized projects, the cost of modifications on behalf of fish and wildlife conservation and of land acquisition, as means and measures to prevent loss of and damage to fish and wildlife resources, to the extent justifiable, shall be References to subsections are to those in H. R. 12371. included as an integral part of the cost of such projects. The justification for means and measures to prevent loss of and damage to fish and wildlife resources, however, is not ordinarily to be presented in monetary terms, such as by the use of a benefit-cost analysis. Justification for such means and measures normally is to be presented only in nonmonetary terms because of the inherent difficulty in assigning a monetary evaluation to losses to fish and wildlife, whose value is, basically, intangible. Also, the spirit of H. R. 12371 is that water projects should provide for all reasonable restitution of project-occasioned losses to fish and wildlife, without dependence on attempted monetary evaluations. The present act has questionable application to Federal water-use projects authorized for construction prior to August 14, 1946, and is silent with respect to financing costs of improvement measures for fish and wildlife. Moreover, it does not provide clearly stated authority for construction agencies to include fish and wildlife improvement measures in project construction and operation plans. Subsection 2 (d) A new proviso in H. R. 12371 defines and limits the types of conservation improvement measures and facilities which are to be integral parts of a Federal water-use project and which the construction agencies are authorized to provide. These would include land acquisition, modification of the project, and modification of project operations. A "modification of the project" may include subimpoundments, for example, near the upstream end of an arm of a reservoir. Operation of fish and wildlife facilities, which are not integral parts of project structures, and construction of other facilities for the enhancement of fish and wildlife are not to be financed or undertaken by the construction agencies. A second proviso is similar to the language contained in the present Coordination Act making costs allocated to fish and wildlife at Federal reclamation projects nonreimbursable. New language in lieu of the term "preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife," which appears in the present act, is used for clarification. H. R. 12371 allows discretion in determining whether cost allocations are to be made for improvement measures and, if so, whether any portion of the cost is to be reimbursed by non-Federal interests. Subsection 2 (e) H. R. 12371 restates language in present Coordination Act authorizing transfers of funds from construction agencies to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for investigations by the Service. The amendment authorizes the transfer of funds to finance all or part of the investigations. This recognizes that investigations in the project planning stage are to be financed with funds appropriated to the Interior Department. Note in section 2 of the H. R. 12371 (on p. 13 of the bill, discussed below on pp. 12 and 13) that direct financing of investigations by the Department of the Interior is proposed in the case of studies of small watershed projects. Reconnaissance surveys and certain special project studies are now financed by direct appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Subsection 2 (f) H. R. 12371 spells out that reports of construction agencies on a project proposed for authorization must contain an estimation of benefits or losses to fish and wildlife. This estimation is not necessarily to be made in monetary terms. Such report would be required to deal specifically with costs of enhancement facilities or lands to be acquired for wildlife improvement purposes. The reports would also contain a recommendation as to the portion of the cost of joint-use facilities, if any, to be reimbursed by non-Federal interests. Presumably, this recommendation will be the result of joint planning between, and judgment decisions of, the construction and conservation agencies. This is new language, not contained in the present Coordination Act. Subsection 2 (g) H. R. 12371 would make the provisions of section 2 applicable to any project or unit thereof if construction on them is not substantially completed. Sets a cutoff time as to the section's application by defining substantial completion as the stage when 60 percent or more of the estimated construction cost has been obligated for expenditure. (Note: Many projects are vast developments from the standpoint of geography, economics, and engineering complexity. One project may cover a large area and consist of many separable units on which construction is authorized under rather general legislation. In one case, appro priations for construction of the project were first made about 25 years ago, yet there are units on which construction has not started or gone very far on which wildlife studies should be made and would be made under the provisions of this bill. Also, there are hundreds of authorized Federal water-use projects for which construction funds have not yet been appropriated). This retroactive provision is not included in the present Coordination Act. Subsection 2 (h) In H. R. 12371, minor impoundments of less than 10 acres, constructed by the Federal Government, are exempted from the operation of the act. This would include the vast majority of Federal ponds and tanks, built for stock watering and other purposes on the public domain, Indian lands and national forests. Makes the act inapplicable to programs primarily for land management conducted by Federal agencies on Federal lands—for example, logging and roadbuilding on national forests where control of water, if any, would be incidental. (However, sec. 1 of the New Coordination Act would still be applicable as authority to withdraw public lands and make them available to the States for fish and wildlife management purposes and for access to fishing and hunting areas.) The above amendments are contained in subsection 2 (h) of H. R. 12371. No such exemptions are spelled out in the present Coordination Act. Section 3 of the revised Coordination Act Subsections 3 (a) and 3 (b) of H. R. 12371 restate, in improved form, the policy set forth in section 3 of the present Coordination Act that lands and waters acquired by the Federal Government primarily for irrigation, flood control or other purposes but also adaptable for wildlife conservation should be made available for administration by fish and game agencies pursuant to general plans approved by the agencies concerned. The amendments make provision to permit the construction agencies to turn over to conservation agencies lands acquired specifically for conservation purposes and other purposes. Provide authority to construction agencies to acquire lands for fish and wildlife conservation purposes at Federal water projects, subject to approval by the Congress for individual projects. H. R. 12371 contains language in several subsections which clarifies application of section 3 and proposes certain restrictions and requirements as follows: Subsection 3 (b) A proviso in this subsection points out that section 3 is not intended to interfere with the existing authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to enter directly into agreements with State conservation agencies for the management of fish and wildlife resources on national forest or other lands administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and to make such lands available to the States for such purposes. This proviso restricts application of the terms of subsections 3 (b) and 3 (e). Subsection 3 (c) A provision in this subsection spells out the type of information to be con tained in water-use reports going to the Congress which contain recommenda tions for land acquisition for fish and wildlife management purposes. In the case of recommendations for land acquisition in connection with a previously authorized water-use project, a specific authorization from the Congress is re quired, if specific authority for the acquisition of the land is recommended by the construction agency. If specific authority is not so recommended, land acquisition for fish and wildlife purposes on these previously authorized projects would be generally authorized by the bill. Subsection 3 (d) This new subsection points out that lands acquired specifically for fish and wildlife purposes are not to be subject to exchange or other transactions, under the general land exchange authorities of the several affected Federal departments, if such exchange or transaction would defeat the initial purpose of their acquisition. Subsection 3 (e) This new subsection spells out that Federal lands acquired or withdrawn for Federal water-use projects and made available to the States or the Secretary of the Interior for wildlife management purposes are to be made available in ac cordance with this act and no other law. |