Mr. BREAUX. Dr. St. Amant had some comments which I know you probably heard regarding that. These appear to be in conflict. Mr. MORTON. Well, sir, I know that he did. I'd like to quote something from the Louisiana Wetlands Prospectus-"Conclusions, Recommendations, Proposals of the Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources," September 1973. In that document, Dr. St. Amant said early in his testimony, I believe, that "there has been no detectable impact of the loss of habitat on marine resources." If I may quote, it says: Commission notes that total fisheries production is on the increase in the coastal zone, and that this has occurred while there has been intensive multiple use of the wetlands in coastal waters. However, there are certain trends which, if not studied carefully, monitored closely and perhaps checked, could result in the damage in the long run to coastal marsh and estuarine production. These trends are: (1) Increasing acreages are being closed by pollution to oyster harvesting; (2) Oyster yields per acre have decreased ten fold in the past 30 years; (3) Shrimp catch per boat has decreased ninefold in the past 30 years; (4) Salt water intrusion continues to intrude further inland; and (5) Wetlands are being lost at a net rate of 16.5 square miles per year. Mr. BREAUX. What you're talking about is per boat, per hour, per man-hour catches. If you're talking about total amount of shrimp caught, that's not the same thing. That's not correct. Mr. MORTON. I'm not sure I understand. Mr. BREAUX. I think that what you're pointing out is that the number of shrimp per boat, or per man-hour, has decreased. Mr. MORTON. Right. Mr. BREAUX. The total amount, because of the number of shrimp boats fishing has increased. Mr. MORTON. It's remained the same, sir. Mr. BREAUX. Oh, yeah. It hasn't decreased. Mr. MORTON. Hasn't decreased. You would assume that with the advances in technology of harvesting over the years, that the catch should go up, if we weren't at the maximum sustainable yield. Mr. BREAUX. Let's let the shrimp experts say something about shrimp. Mr. ROTE. It just occurred to me why Fish and Wildlife Service raises its decreased catch, I think they want to feed their birds with our shrimp. In a serious vein, I think another important point to be made about this land-water balance and the loss of the marshes and the wetlands is the depth of the water involved. Obviously, the photic zone is closer to the surface of the water. That's where the primary productivity occurs. Turbidity, of course, can affect this. Loss of the vegetative marshes, we believe, decreases the influx of nutrients into the system. I think that all of these considerations have to be taken into account. Mr. BREAUX. Dr. Rote, on page 2 of your testimony-incidentally, I thought that both your testimonies were good in surveying and providing the committee with the number of permits you handled and the amount of delays attached with the number of permits that you have objected to and commented on and have not objected to. I think that's very helpful. You point out on page 2: We do not have the responsibility, authority or expertise to consider the engineering and socioeconomic factors that may also be taken into account in reaching the final decision on permit issuance. I agree with that. But, hasn't the National Marine Fisheries Service made engineering recommendations, for instance, recommending that you would have no objections to a permit being issued if slant drilling was employed? Now, that's an engineering recommendation. Yet, you admitted very clearly in your statement that you have no authority or even expertise to consider engineering. Dr. ROTE. Well, on that point, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to note that the U.S. Geological Survey does have a great deal of expertise in this area and we have consulted with them. We can go outside of our immediate offices for this information if we don't have it in-house. Mr. BREAUX. Are you saying that everytime that National Marine Fisheries has recommended slant drilling that involved a prior consultation with USGS as to the feasibility, from an engineering standpoint, of whether it could be accomplished? Dr. ROTE. No, sir, I can't say that. I would have to defer to the regional people, but in the case of the Ten Fathom permit, for example, there is a letter from our Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries to General Robinson, which points out the fact that the USGS did mention, and I believe it was a part of the record, that it was economically feasible to conduct directional drilling. In that case, I'm saying that we don't have the in-house expertise, but that does exist, and I think that all of the Federal agencies can turn to that. Mr. STEVENSON. You'll find that on no occasion did we, in fact, recommend slant drilling. We suggested that this be looked at as an alternative. Mr. BREAUX. That's pretty close, isn't it? Mr. STEVENSON. It's splitting hairs, Mr. Chairman. I fully recognize that. It was done, as I've indicated, in an effort to try to resolve the issue of trying to suggest alternatives that might permit the system to continue. When we made the first suggestion of this type, the issue was raised as it has been today, repeatedly. I think justifiably then and I think justifiably now. We looked at it very carefully. It developed the dialog that finally ended in the case for a permit application going forward in order to resolve the issue, as General Robinson indicated, was one of the major criteria for a referral up to the Washington level. We have not used any technical input into decisions of that type. We have merely suggested this as an alternative, and did not necessarily mean that it would be engineeringly effective or economically sound. That's a decision, as I've indicated, that is outside of our authority. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Roberts, any questions? Mr. ROBERTS. I don't have any questions, but I'll make one comment. This will give my attitude toward both of these agencies. Twice, or three times today, I've heard them say that the cause of this was the levees around the Mississippi River. All of you that don't want to live in this area should just check out and we can stop $600 million, $700 million a year. This will all be covered up with water. We'll have lots of water. Mr. BREAUX. No people. Mr. ROBERTS. No people. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Treen? Mr. ROBERTS. I'd just rather have a few people than have the snail darter, and I'm not even really concerned about 700,000 coots. I don't know anybody who even coots anymore. Mr. BREAUX. Can anyone tell me how the memorandum of understanding, or whatever you'd call it, agreement, that you're now working on, is going to improve the situation? General MARSHALL. I don't know that much about it, Mr. Chairman. I think in partial response, General Robinson indicated that there was hope that by categorizing the different types of permits the District Engineer's ability to act without referral would be enhanced. That would certainly be an objective, to let these problems be handled at the level of the District Engineer. Now, if that objective is reached in the yet to be completed memorandum of understanding, then we would see an improvement. Mr. BREAUX. I get the impression that the corps strongly prefers that these disputes and disagreements be resolved at the district level rather than having to forward them to the Chief's Office or to Washington. Is that correct? General MARSHALL. Yes, sir, I think that so often we find that in the process they come to me. That takes time. I have to deal with the regional level of the different agencies, and then it goes to Washington. It just takes time. Frequently, the bureaucratic solution is to find some need for additional studies. The permit is then returned to the field for additional work. By the very nature of the process, the lower the level of decision, without referral, the quicker the action. Mr. BREAUX. I've alluded to this in the beginning. I asked questions on it. I'm not satisfied with the expressions I've gotten backparticularly from the Department of Energy, because I truly envision this as a balancing proposition, as everything is, this is a balancing in the development and a balancing with management and preservation. Does the corps, Colonel Sands, do you feel you have enough engineering and enough energy information that when you receive information from National Marine Fisheries and from Fish and Wildlife Service that you are able to make a balanced decision? I don't think you do. If you tell me "yes, I have enough," and DOE doesn't even seem too enthusiastic about getting involved in this process, I don't know how you have enough information, quite frankly. Colonel SANDS. Sir, obviously it's our responsibility to get it. We have to get the information we need in the decisionmaking process to insure that the public interest is considered. Mr. BREAUX. The difference, Colonel, is that this agency and this agency is automatically on every permit application providing you with that information, you don't have to go out and get it? Colonel SANDS. That's correct. Mr. BREAUX. You don't have to go out and ask for it. Colonel SANDS. That's correct. Mr. BREAUX. Whereas if you, on a permit, want more information about engineering or energy or about potential energy deposits, you have to go out and look for it. Colonel SANDS. That's correct. Mr. BREAUX. It just looks like it would be easier if they were included in the process. Heaven knows that I don't want to include them in the process to delay the thing, but just to provide the corps with the information to make that balancing act. Colonel SANDS. Sir, we really don't have any problem from the perspective of determining or balancing the Nation's energy needs. Among the problems that are obviously inherent here in the decisionmaking process, is the fact that it is obviously subjective for the most part. Therefore, you do have to insure that you do go to maximum lengths to get the information that you need. It comes down in this particular situation that we're talking about here—by and large we've heard for the most part today the discussion about our requiring or suggesting to the oil companies in getting information relative to slant drilling. What we're talking about in the final analysis is comparing the costs to the oil companies if we require them to slant drill, with the value of the canal that would be saved. Thus, the district engineer, or whoever has to make the decision, has to look to see whether or not the $500,000 that you're requiring the oil company to put out is worth the 500 feet or the 1,500 feet of wetlands canal that you're saving. Mr. BREAUX. You're apparently saying that you do take these things into consideration. Colonel SANDS. Absolutely, sir. Mr. BREAUX. That's all the questions I have. Mr. Chairman, do you have any additional questions? Mr. ROBERTS. I don't think so. Mr. BREAUX. After reviewing our testimony, when we get back to Washington, we'll be submitting additional questions to both NMFS and Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the corps to which we would like to have you respond in writing. You've been helpful in providing what you have so far. Gentlemen, we thank you for your patience in being the last panel. With that, we will conclude this field hearing, this oversight hearing on the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. We have a lot of questions that remain to be answered. We have a lot of things that this committee will have to return to Washington with and take under consideration as to how we can help solve this problem. I, personally, am and have always been very distraught over the delays and the balancing that I believe everyone must engage in trying to balance energy needs with the need to preserve and protect the Louisiana wetlands. It's not an easy thing to accomplish. It's a very complicated process. We'll take that information back and decide the next step this committee will take from a legislative standpoint. With that, the hearing of the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife and the Environment, as well as our very good friend, Mr. Roberts' Subcommittee on Water Resources, which he chairs, will be adjourned until further called. [Whereupon, the hearing was closed at 5 p.m., Friday, October 5, 1979.] LACEY ACT REVISIONS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1979 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in room 1334, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. John B. Breaux, presiding. Present: Representatives Breaux, Hughes, de la Garza, Oberstar, Forsythe, Young, Emery, and Evans of the Virgin Islands. Staff present: G. Wayne Smith, Robert Thornton, Barbara Wyman, and Norma Moses. Mr. BREAUX. The subcommittee will please be in order. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment begins hearings on an administration proposal to stem the illegal trade in wildlife. The administration proposal, which has been referred to us in an executive communication, would revise and update the existing Lacey and Black Bass Acts. The Lacey and Black Bass Acts currently restrict the importation and interstate transportation and sale of illegally taken fish and wildlife species. To a very real extent these two statutes serve as the major Federal effort to assist other States and foreign nations in the enforcement of their wildlife statutes. The theory of these statutes is simple. The Federal Government should attempt, where it can, to prohibit interstate transportation of fish and wildlife products when the products were taken in violation of a State or foreign law. These statutes are consistent with the traditional Federal-State relationships in the area of wildlife management. Under our system, the individual States have the major responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. It is the States that, by and large, set the allowable seasons and harvest levels for fish and wildlife species. It is also the States that have the main responsibility to insure that their own wildlife conservation laws are adequately enforced. We all know, however, that no State can do the job by itself. The Federal Government has a responsibility to assist the States' conservation efforts by prohibiting interstate commerce in wildlife products taken in violation of State law. The role of the Federal Government in enforcing foreign laws is equally if not more important. Although the United States probably has the best wildlife management system in the world, we |