MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT

FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Joseph E. Karth presiding.

Mr. KARTH. Dr. Cain, will you move to the witness table, please, sir? I might just announce preliminarily that the chairman is detained momentarily, Doctor. He will be here shortly. If you would, please proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY A. CAIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES T. McBROOM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COOPERATIVE SERVICES; WILLIAM M. WHITE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF RIVER BASIN STUDIES, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; MITCHELL G. HANAVAN, CHIEF, BRANCH OF ANADROMOUS FISHERIES; LOUIS D. STRINGER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, BRANCH OF SHELL FISHERIES, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES; AND LEWIS SIGLER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Dr. CAIN. I would like to have permission for Mr. Lewis Sigler, who is Assistant Legislative Counsel; Mr. McBroom, who is the Assistant Director for Cooperative Services, and Mr. White, who is Chief of the Division of River Basin Studies, to be here.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we strongly support the objectives of H.R. 9492 and H.R. 14414. We recommend the enactment of H.R. 14455 with amendment, as I will discuss later.

One of the major problems of the Department of the Interior is the lack of adequate studies as a basis for specific and meaningful recommendations for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources in the face of proposed water resource development projects under Federal license or permit.

The inadequacy of studies and the shortage of time available to conduct such studies is not general nor widespread. The problem lies with a few particularly difficult projects. In the case of the great bulk of projects coming before the regulatory agencies, we receive adequate notice, and our technicians and scientists study and report their findings and recommendations in a timely and fully satisfactory manner. Most of the troublesome projects on this matter of adequate studies involve unique or special situations. Knowledge of the dynamic ecosystem of the area of influence is in some instances essentially nonexistent in specific detail, even though we know in a general way that highly important resource values are at stake. In these and other cases, the anticipated project effects may be so complex as to defy short-term or commonly useful analytic methods.

In still other cases, the natural values may be intimately known, and the threat to them may be readily apparent. Yet, the values are wholly intangible perhaps I should say some of the values are wholly intangible esthetic, or otherwise unmeasurable in monetary terms, so that weighing their loss against proposed project benefits poses a practically insoluble problem.

Some difficult cases have involved license applications before the Federal Power Commission, which have not passed through the preliminary permit stage.

The rules of practice of the Commission have not generally allowed sufficient time for detailed and extended study. The basic planning of the applicant usually has progressed nearly to completion prior to the application for license. The applicant thus is ready, indeed anxious, to go into construction without delay. Reconnaissance field and office studies of the project's impact on fish and wildlife may be all that the normal urgency of such situations permits.

Nevertheless, procedures have been worked out in some of these difficult cases wihch permit construction to go forward concurrently with the needed ecological, biological, and engineering studies.

Yet, the thorough, long-term studies of the ecosystem which some cases demand generally cannot be consummated with the project schedule, and rarely within the 90- or 180-day period that is normally allotted for review.

In some few project situations, a period of at least 2 or 3 years is needed to complete baseline studies of the ecosystem. Further studies are required to relate the project impact to this system, and to devise any needed protective and mitigative measures.

Adequate authority now exists, however, in the case of the Federal Power Act to work out an administrative solution to the problem of inadequate notice and time for studies. In fact, following recent discussions with the Federal Power Commission, they have proposed regulations requiring an applicant to submit a "Fish and Wildlife Exhibit" with his application.

On April 19, 1966, the Commission issued its "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" which would require that:

an exhibit setting forth matters related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project be filed as part of license applications for proposed projects of more than 2,000 horsepower installed capacity.

A copy of this document is attached to the Department's legislative report on H.R. 9492 which has been handed to the committee.

We believe this administrative solution will provide more adequate notice than is possible by any other means. More adequate time for studies also can be provided administratively under the Commission's rules of practice, and we intend to request it when the situation so demands.

We understand that the Federal Power Commission anticipates that under this new licensing regulation applicants may advance funds to make needed studies during the planning stages.

Previously, the Federal Power Commission has required its licensees for several projects to fund needed fish and wildlife studies. However, these studies were instituted as a condition of the license, and thus were conducted in the preconstruction and contruction periods.

With the new regulation and earlier funding by the applicant, it is believed that studies can be commenced much earlier in the planning stages.

This administrative solution to the problem makes section 1 of the bill unnecessary.

The Atomic Energy Commission is authorized by the Atomic Energy Act to issue permits to private sponsors of nuclear power reactors. These plants generally use large volumes of water for cooling purposes.

In many cases, the operation of these plants may harmfully affect our streams and fisheries therein through water diversion and discharge of the heated water used to cool the plant. Water temperature increases of 10° to 20° F., can be expected at these plants. Temperatures much higher than this occur in the cooling water as it passes through the plant.

If the plant intakes have not been properly screened, large numbers of fish can be killed as they are drawn through the plant.

Since plants may be located so as to use either inland or coastal waters for cooling, either fresh water or marine fishes and anadromous fishes may be affected.

The same problems arise with ordinary thermal electric plants, as I will discuss more fully later in relation to section 3 of H.R. 9492. The Atomic Energy Commission advises us that it lacks authority to impose conditions in its licenses relating to thermal and other nonradiological effects on fish and wildlife. Thus, authority is needed to protect fish and wildlife resources adequately at nuclear powerplants. H.R. 10701 is now pending before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House. It would provide the Federal Power Commission with authority to license facilities, including nuclear ones, using waters from navigable streams for cooling purposes. These licenses would thus be made subject to provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The licenses could be conditioned to protect and conserve fish and wildlife. Adequate notice and opportunity for study could be provided, as with other projects under the purview of the Federal Power Commission.

The Department of the Interior, therefore, strongly urges the enactment of H.R. 10701, with certain clarifying amendments which we will submit in our report on that bill to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

Section 2 of H.R. 9492 would authorize the Department to carry out a comprehensive survey of the effects of thermal pollution on fish and wildlife resources of the Nation.

We heartily endorse the objective of this section. We sincerely believe such a survey is needed. The urgency of this need has been plainly demonstrated on the Columbia River, as I will discuss in relation to section 3 of this bill.

As an alternative means of authorizing this thermal pollution survey, we recommend that a clarifying amendment to section 5 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act be enacted by means of a new section in H.R. 14455. I will present the details of this clarifying amendment as I discuss H.R. 14455.

The Department of the Interior is greatly concerned about the potentially damaging effects of thermal pollution on fish and wildlife resources, which is the concern of section 3 of H.R. 9492. Modern, large-capacity, thermalelectric plants, whether powered by atomic energy or conventional fuels, can threaten serious harm to our fish and wildlife.

Recently, in considering the Duke Power Co.'s application for a license from the Federal Power Commission for the contemplated use of water at the Keowee-Toxaway project, FPC No. 2503, for cooling a 3,000-megawatt thermal generating plant, the Department engaged a consultant of recognized authority on the subject of thermal pollution.

The consultant conducted an apprisal of heat transfer and water temperature change. The findings of this study formed the basis for the Department's recommendations to the Federal Power Commission.

The studies demonstrated to us the magnitude and seriousness of thermal effects which are possible with the use of large quantities of streamflow or impounded waters required for condenser cooling in modern large-capacity thermal electric plants.

Many factors come into play to affect salmonid fishes in the new environments created by water-use developments. Undoubtedly, one of the most important of these is water temperature, because of its possible effect on migration rates and timing of salmonid runs.

Compounding the problem is the effect of changing environment on the ability of salmon to home, the likelihood of increasing exposure to disease, and the competition from other species which may increase in numbers because of new conditions more favorable for their growth and survival.

A number of investigations are in progress to assess the extent of these problems, and to search for means of controlling the more obvious. factors affecting the survival of salmonids.

Examination of water temperature trends in the Columbia Basin indicates that conditions for salmonids are approaching critical levels in the hot summer months. Further impoundments for river-run hydro developments will expose additional masses of water to solar heating and push temperature levels even higher.

Large-scale expansion of the number and size of thermalelectric plants in the Columbia Basin could be expected to intensify the problem.

Adding to the concern is the fluctuation in river discharge due to peaking operations of the hydro facilities, which would accelerate heating of water during low-flow periods.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, at this point add one other pertinent point here, it is that any diversion from the Columbia to any drainage system reducing the flow would also reduce the heating effects.

Returning to the statement as directed, with a view to the future, it is realistic to expect a substantial rise in current maximum water temperatures of the main stem Columbia and other major rivers if no corrective actions are taken.

A possible solution to the problem lies in the judicious release of cold water masses from deep upriver storage plants.

Additional controls may be necessary as industrial development proceeds in the basin. These could take the form of laws restricting thermal input to the river system.

It is now pointed out that an increase in the Columbia River's temperature to 65° F. and above may greatly influence the survival of the young salmon. Studies of the temperature regime of the Columbia River downstream from Priest Rapids Dam show the temperature at the dam could vary from 65° to 72° F. between the middle of July and the last of September, with the highest temperature occurring during August.

With the development of electric power at the Hanford Atomic Energy Commission plant, the river's temperature at the plant may increase at least 10° F. above the range at Priest Rapids Dam, and attain a level critical to the survival of salmon fingerlings.

Increase in the temperature of the upper Columbia River following its complete impoundment and proposed industrial utilization poses a hazardous obstacle to continuation of the salmon runs in the upper river.

If the salmon resources of the river are to be maintained, it is essential that appropriate measures be adapted to assure suitable water temperatures.

We agree with the objectives of the section 3 of the proposed bill, and we believe our proposed amendment to section 5 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, previously discussed, will meet those objectives.

It is conceivable that the public interest may be better served by the continuing operation of a facility, even though it may adversely affect one resource. In some cases, a modification of the facility may reduce the adverse effects on fish and wildlife.

The Secretary should be able to take into account all factors in determining whether or not abatement proceedings should be instituted. Also, it should be noted that since Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966 has become effective, the Secretary now has the responsibility for carrying out the enforcement provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.

With respect to H.R. 14414, we believe that it is unnecessary, in that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act now includes in its purview the agencies and other entities to which this bill would have application.

H.R. 14455 would repeal section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. This section provides that the act shall not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

We recommend enactment of this bill. We find no reason why TVA should be exempeted from the provisions of the act. All other Federal agencies authorized to impound, divert, or otherwise modify or