This project modifies the authorized John Day lock and dam project, which is located at river mile 215 on the Columbia River, Wash. and Oreg. As a result of studies by Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, the Secretary of the Interior, with concurrence of the States of Oregon and Washington, has recommended that a national wildlife refuge for migratory waterfowl be established as an integral part of the John Day lock and dam project. The Chief of Engineers recommends that the John Day lock and dam project be modified to provide for acquisition of necessary lands and the development thereof in accordance with the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior, at a Federal cost of $1,356,000 including $676.000 for land purchase and $680,000 for development. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.35. The land will be purchased by the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be responsible for development, operation, and maintenance, including the funding of these items. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to Congress. Mr. Chairman, Mr. John S. Gottschalk, Director of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries, Department of the Interior, is present this morning at the hearing. Mr. JONES. Mr. Gottschalk. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which I can leave with the committee. Mr. JONES. Without objection, the prepared statement will be included in the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN S. GOTTSCHALK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AT THE JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM PROJECT The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is grateful for the opportunity to present this statement in support of the establishment of a national wildlife refuge as a part of the Corps of Engineers multiple-purpose John Day lock and dam project on the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington. Numerous water development projects have been completed on the middle Columbia and lower Snake Rivers. Other such projects are under construction and still others are planned. Collectively, these projects will eliminate major resting, feeding, and nesting areas for both ducks and geese. These waterfowl populations provide many man-days of hunting to the residents of the general region, as well as contribute substantially to the overall productivity of the Pacific flyway. Wildlife developments such as McNary National Wildlife Refuge and McNary Game Range, a State of Washington development, have demonstrated that adverse effects of water development projects can be reduced through improvement of habitat and management of selected areas specifically for waterfowl. The John Day lock and dam project offers a similar but a much more suitable combination of conditions for development of a waterfowl area of major significance. The proposal for establishing a national wildlife refuge on lands purchased by the Corps of Engineers does not represent a new precedent. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended in 1958, as well as language in each Public Works Appropriation Act since that date, has specified the intent of Congress to consider wildlife conservation on an equal basis with flood control and other purposes of water resource projects. In recent years, several national wildlife refuges have been established on land purchased by the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to congressional authorization, specifically for waterfowl conservation purposes. The Choctaw refuge has been established in Alabama at the Jackson lock and dam project on lands acquired by the Corps of Engineers specifically for this purpose under authority contained in the Flood Control Act of 1960. The Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge has been established at the Walter F. George project in Georgia and Alabama on lands acquired by the corps under similar authority contained in the Flood Control Act of 1962. In The proposed national wildlife refuge would extend along both sides of the Columbia River. In Washington the approximate boundaries would be the Paterson-Coolidge area in the east and the Crow Butte area in the west. In Oregon, the western boundary would be in the vicinity of Castle Rock and the eastern boundary in the Irrigon region. The refuge would encompass 29,370 acres of which 12,580 acres would be land and 16,790 acres water. addition to using 8,750 acres of land acquired for other project purposes, about 3,300 acres of additional private land and 530 acres of public land would be needed under the proposed plan. Total cost of the additional lands would be about $676,000. Initial development expenses would amount to about $680,000, and the annual cost of operating and maintaining the refuge would be about $66,000. Initial development would consist of three subimpoundments, refuge headquarters, roads, and fencing. Following these developments, waterfowl food crops would be planted and other measures instituted to make the area more attractive to wildlife. Acquisition and development of the lands, coupled with intensive management, would result in an increased waterfowl use of 5,700,000 duck-days and 3,170,000 goose-days annually over present use of the project area. Waterfowl use at this level would increase the hunting in the vicinity of the project by an estimated 25,000 man-days, valued at $112,000 annually. In addition to these enhancement benefits, the refuge would compensate for an estimated 2,054,000 duck-days and 615,000 goose-days use of the project area which will be lost as a result of the John Day project if the proposed measures are not implemented. A fully developed refuge in this area would also be of considerable benefit in helping to control waterfowl depredation on nearby agricultural crops. An intangible benefit, which cannot be evaluated in monetary terms, would be the importance of the refuge to our neighbors in Canada and Mexico, with whom we have agreements concerning conservation of migratory waterfowl. Planning for development of the John Day lock and dam project for flood control, navigation, power, fish and wildlife, recreation and industrial facilities has been carried out on a multiple-purpose basis. Federal, State, and local organizations, groups and individuals have taken part in formulation of plans for use of project lands. Many meetings have been held during the planning of this project to work out land and water-use conflicts in a friendly and equitable manner, and we are convinced that a program for the greatest benefits to the greatest number has resulted from the give-and-take approach followed in development of the proposed plans. It is our belief that a refuge at the John Day lock and dam project, as planned, would fit in well with local plans for the development of the project area. We also believe that the refuge would prove popular and be a decided asset to the people and communities in the vicinity of the project. Establishment of this refuge would greatly facilitate our national program for management of the waterfowl resources of the continent and should be an outstanding example of a truly multiple purpose water development project. We ask that you give favorable consideration to the authorization of project modification for the acquisition of additional lands for a national wildlife refuge at the John Day lock and dam project. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I will be glad to answer any questions. Mr. JONES. Will you briefly describe what you intend to do? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. The proposed refuge is located at the upper end of the pool formed by the John Day Dam. What we are proposing here is the acquisition of an additional area to be used for the planting of crops for waterfowl food to enhance the capability of this reservoir to support wildlife. This is another example of the situation in which, by the addition of a relatively small amount of land to the existing project, the total capability of the project can be greatly increased. Mr. JONES. Is it in the flyway? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. It is in the Pacific flyway. As a matter of fact, there is a very substantial flight of both geese and ducks, primarily mallards and pintails, which come down the Columbia River, and in recent years this flock has been growing. We believe that this project will not only conserve the birds by providing a migrating place, but also substantially add to the community economy by substantial hunting, which will take place on surrounding land, and to some extent on the refuge itself. We are proposing the establishing of some small subimpoundments, the acquisition of some land in these islands out in the body of the pool itself, as well as the peripheral land. I could tell you that the project has been scrutinized closely by both the States of Washington and Oregon. It has been approved with some enthusiasm, I might add, by the planning agencies involved, both at the county and State level; and there is interest in it because there is the belief that as the economy of the region grows and more industry comes, this refuge and the wild lands that will be associated with it will help to make the area more attractive for residents who ultimately will come to live there. Mr. JONES. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. I have cne question, Mr. Gottschalk. Yesterday in a discussion of the other project involving wildlife refuge, you mentioned that when you determined that a refuge should be created, you simply estimated the benefits would be equivalent to the cost. Now I notice down here, under annual benefits, there is a breakdown of damages prevented of $34,000, then enhancement, $112.000. You do not list the average that you listed on the other project, which was wildlife and hunting, something of that kind. Why do you not list wildlife and hunting here and list enhancement in place of it? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. In my response to my questions yesterday, Mr. Baldwin, I was thinking primarily in terms of the benefit one of the refuges has for the preservation of migratory birds in the sense of their presence within a broad area. In other words, it is extremely difficult to assess a monetary figure on birds which just travel through. In the case of this particular project, there are identifiable onsite benefits as distinct from offsite benefits that accrue to a total national resource. In this case, we have been able to establish the approximate number of hunters who can be accommodated on this refuge, and it is large enough so that by determining the approximate amount that this hunting is worth, we have figures which indicate it is approximately $4.50 a day. Multiplying this by the number of hunters who will participate, we came out with a figure which gives an immediate benefit specifically attributable to this area. Now, in addition to that, we could assess this general benefit that I was talking about yesterday if we wanted to in this case. The point I am making is here we have an onsite benefit which is a specifically identifiable benefit of the project and it represents, again, a conservative figure to which could be added this general benefit if there was a necessity to do so. Since it is already demonstrated on the basis of the economic analysis that the benefit-cost ratio is favorable, we did not add the additional assumed benefit to what you see in the analysis. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EDMONDS HARBOR, WASH. Colonel PRESTON. Mr. Chairman, the next project is Edmonds Harbor, Wash., which can be found on page 30 of the Senate report. Edmonds Harbor is on the easterly shore of Puget Sound 9 miles north of Seattle, Wash. Local interests have constructed the boat harbor without Federal assistance and desire Federal maintenance of the breakwaters and entrance channel. The Chief of Engineers recommends Federal maintenance of the breakwater and entrance channel, at an estimated annual cost of $5,000, subject to certain items of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated willingness and ability to cooperate. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.6. The State of Washington and Federal agencies concerned favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Mr. JONES. Next project. COASTS OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS Colonel PRESTON. The next project, Mr. Chairman, is the coasts of the Hawaiian Islands, which can be found on page 34 of the Senate report. This project involves small-boat harbors at various communities on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, within the State of Hawaii. There is a need for additional protected harbors for existing and future recreational and commercial fishing craft. The Chief of Engineers recommends eight small boat harbors at Hanalei Bay, Kauai; Waianae, Oahu; Heeia-kea, Oahu; Kailue, Oahu: Maunalua Bay, Oahu; Lehaina, Maui; Hana, Maui, and Reeds Bay, Hawaii. Mr. JONES. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Colonel PRESTON. The estimated Federal cost is $4,737,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation including a cash contribution of a part of the first cost of construction totaling a presently estimated $3,064,000. Local interests have indicated willingness and ability to cooperate. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.1. 32 529-63-pt. 1--10 The State of Hawaii and Federal agencies concerned favor the project, and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Mr. JONES. Any questions? Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. As I understand it, the basic principle upon which you handle the small craft harbor is a maximum of 50 percent Federal contribution. Is that correct? Colonel PRESTON. That is correct, sir, with respect to that part of the project cost allocated to recreation. Mr. BALDWIN. Now, as I go through here, I notice that the first 5 projects have local contributions greater than the Federal contribution, but on the sixth one, which is Lahaina, and the seventh one, Hana, there is a substantially greater Federal contribution. Why would that be? Colonel PRESTON. Sir, in the computation of the shares, the local contribution is one-half of the recreational benefits, and in the case of Lahaina, the local cash contribution of $344,000 is 46.9 percent. But that is of the total, where the computation of the recreational benetfis were split evenly. Mr. BALDWIN. Well, what is there in the case of small boats other recreation? Colonel PRESTON. Well, there are commercial benefits, sir. Commercial use. Mr. BALDWIN. What kind of small boats are these? Colonel PRESTON. Fishing; fishing and other commercial craft. Mr. BALDWIN. Now, in the case of Hana, there is a very substantial Federal contribution in relation to the local. Is that primarily a fishing harbor? Colonel PRESTON. Yes, sir, that is primarily commercial use indicated. Mr. BALWDIN. Thank you. Mr. JONES. The next project. Colonel PRESTON. The next project, Mr. Chairman, is Honokahau Harbor, Hawaii, which can be found on page 35 of the Senate report. HONOKAHAU HARBOR, HAWAII Honokahau Bay is on the west coast of the island of Hawaii, about 150 nautical miles from Honolulu. There is no adequate harbor in this area, and a need exists for a protected harbor for existing and future recreational and commercial fishing craft. The Chief of Engineers recommends provision of entrance, access, and service channels and associated improvements at a Federal cost of $680,000, subject to certain items of local cooperation, including a cash contribution presently estimated at $556,000. Local interests have indicated willingness and ability to cooperate. The benefit-tocost ratio is 2.6. The State of Hawaii and the Federal agencies concerned favor the project. The Bureau of the. Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Mr. JONES. Next project. |