Shad in particular are becoming an increasingly important recreational resources on the Delaware and we need to know much more about their movements, numbers and natural requirements in connection with proposals to construct flood control and hydroelectric dams across the migratory path of these fisheries on the Delaware. The commission has requested the construction of fishways at the power dams on the lower Susquehanna and studies are now being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and neighboring States looking toward the eventual building of fish ladders to pass shad, eels, and perhaps some other fisheries over the obstructions and into the upper reaches of the river. We have studied the bill and the Secretary's report of January 22, 1964, and wish to urge its enactment. Sincerely yours, ALBERT M. DAY, STATE OF DELAWARE, Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, BOARD OF GAME AND FISH COMMISSIONERS, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BONNER: Because of the interest of the State of Delaware in the preservation of reminiscents of the shad runs on the Delaware River, our commission wishes to go on record in support of H.R. 2392, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a program for the conservation, develop ment, and enhancement of the Nation's anadromous fish in cooperation with the several States. We have reviewed the amendments proposed by the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife and find ourselves in accord with them. The State of Delaware is well aware of the shortcomings of present methods or lack of methods for the adequate preservation of significant runs of anadromous fish, and would therefore welcome cooperative programs such as visualized in H.R. 2392. Sincerely yours, NORMAN G. WILDER, Director. Mr. PAUL S. BAUER, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, Staff Consultant, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR PAUL: I appreciate the opportunity of reviewing H.R. 2392 by Mr. Dingell. The idea of stressing research on the Nation's anadromous fish, which areas you know, extremely vulnerable to the pressures of society, is a good one and if the bill will help point up this important area, fine. It is my general impression. however, that the Secretary of the Interior already has the legal power and responsibilities outlined in the bill. Further, I am convinced that the Fish and Wildlife Service needs funds rather than further authorization. Despite the fact that VIMS is a State institution and an academically associated one, I have been continually struck by the poor funding of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. There is no doubt that better financial treatment of this unit is necessary. If the intention of the bill is to stimulate research in and by States, I doubt that H.R. 2392 will accomplish much. While I do not know the House counterpart number and sponsor of the Senate 627, I can tell you that the coastal States are in favor of a piece of legislation like S. 627. We are sure that enactment and funding of such a bill will do more to stimulate State research than the Saltonstall-Kennedy bill, which, of course, is now ineffectual as far as States are concerned. I will be pleased to have the opportunity to testify on the House counterpart of S. 627 when hearings are held. With best regards, I am. Sincerely, WILLIAM J. HARGIS, Jr., Director. "Capt. PAUL S. BAUER, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, Solomons, Md., May 2, 1963. Staff_Consultant, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR PAUL: I particularly appreciate receiving a copy of H.R. 2392, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a program for the "conservation, development, and enhancement of the Nation's anadromous fish in cooperation with the several States." My first response is that of enthusiastic endorsement of this recognition of the importance of the anadromous species and of their vulnerability to both mismanagement and destructive activities. These specific functions of research, facility construction, hatchery operation, and land acquisition are all highly pertinent to the protection and maximum development of these species. Further, the authorization to enter into cooperative agreement would provide a most important mechanism for strong support. It is obvious that I am enthusiastically in accord with the intend of the bill. However, I have the impression that the Secretary of the Interior now holds authority for all of these activities. Each now occurs to some degree, and I am not quite clear as to the additional authority or encouragement which would be provided by this action. Your comment on this would be most helpful. Cordially, L. EUGENE CRONIN, Director. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION STATEMENT ON H.R. 2392 (88TH CONGRESS) ON THE CONSERVATION OF ANADROMOUS FISH IN CONNECTION WITH THE LICENSING OF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS The Federal Power Commission, in accordance with the licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act and the long-established policies and procedures of the Commission in licensing matters, gives careful consideration to fish protection and the enhancement of fishery resources in reaching its decisions on hydroelectric project applications filed under that act. It has been the long-established general policy of Congress on the subject of non-Federal water resources development embodied in the Federal Power Act of 1920, that came as the culmination of decades of study and experience which demonstrated the need for technically equipped machinery for licensing nonFederal water power development projects in accordance with general standards of public interest in lieu of the previous piecemeal disposition of licensing matters by ad hoc legislation. Before issuing a license for hydroelectric development under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a) the Commission is required to find under section 10 (a) of the act that in the judgment of the Commission, the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan of development of the water resources for power and all other beneficial public uses including, of course, the conservation, preservation, and enhancement of anadromous fish resources. This section further empowers the Commission to require the modification of any project plans when necessary to carry out such purposes. Also, under the provisions of section 18 of the act the Commission may require the construction, maintenance, and operation of fishways by a licensee at its expense. In order to further safeguard the interests of the United States in dealing with fish matters the following Federal Power Commission license article, agreed upon in conference between representatives of the Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, is now being included as a standard provision in hydroelectric licenses issued by the Commission: Article. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project, to construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facilities at its own expense, the licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use, free of cost, such of licensee's lands and interest in lands, reservoirs, waterways, and project works as may be reasonably required to complete such facilities or such improvements thereof. In addition, after notices and opportunity for hearing, the licensee shall modify the project operation as may be prescribed by the Commission, reasonably consistent with the primary purpose of the project, in order to permit the maintenance and opera tion of the fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the United States under the provisions of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to place any obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish and wildlife facilities or to relieve the licensee of any obligation under this license. Recent action by the Commission on a license matter affecting the Salmon River is illustrative of Commission concern for the preservation of fish resources. Its opinion in that case, No. 418, issued February 5, 1964, involved license applications for the so-called High Mountain Sheep and Nez Perce hydroelectric power projects in Idaho, Pacific Northwest Co., project No. 2243; Washington Publie Power Supply System, project No. 2273, respectively. The Commission granted a license to Pacific Northwest for construction and operation of the High Mountain Sheep project on the Snake River just above the mouth of the Salmon River on the Idaho-Oregon border. At the same time the Commission denied Washington Public Power's application for development of the Nez Perce project site on Snake River just downstream from High Mountain Sheep site and below the mouth of the Salmon River. Rehearing was denied April 30, 1964. One of the controlling factors in the Commission's selection of the High Mountain Sheep site over the Nez Perce site for power development was its conclusion that in the present state of the art it is not possible to build facilities for passage of fish over a high dam and through a reservoir, such as Nez Perce, with any assurance that they will be effective. The Commission concluded that construetion of the Nez Perce Dam, with its reservoir extending 63 miles up the Salmon. River, would adversely affect fish runs on that stream, which is a principal spawning area of Columbia River salmon, whereas the proposed High Mountain Sheep development on the upper Snake River would affect only the fish runs on the Snake River which are already impaired. The Commission found that the High Mountain Sheep plan had a decisive advantage over the Nez Perce plan in that it permits postponement of impoundments on the Salmon River until the fish passage problem is mastered. When this occurs, the Salmon River power potential may be developed by construction of projects at the Lower Canyon site near the mouth of the Salmon and at upstream sites. The recent High Mountain Sheep case is not unique. By reason of their location many of the potential hydroelectric projects of the country may be expected to affect in some manner the conservation of anadromous fish. In such situations, therefore, the Commission must weigh the overall good, and where the balancing of any adverse effects on fish against the overall benefits to navigation, flood control, irrigation, power generation, and other purposes shows the project to be in the public interest, the water resources can be put to the most beneficial publie uses rather than be wasted for most purposes as would be the situation in the absence of such multiple-purpose development. In cases of possible conflict between different uses of a particular water resource, decisions must be made with respect to which use or uses shall be permitted and what limitations and accommodations are necessary to assure all public benefits. The Commission regards its authority to decide such issues in accordance with the evidence as essential to the continued effectiveness of the licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act. In the administration of its licensing powers it is the practice of the Commission to advise interested Federal agencies, Governors, and State and local agencies of the filing of applications for preliminary permits and licenses for hydroelectric power projects, thus giving them an opportunity to present objections or other comments, and to participate as interested parties in appropriate cases. Similar action is taken by the Commission in regard to an application for the amendment of a license. Copies of the license instruments concerning waterpower projects are furnished to various interested Federal and State agencies in accordance with our established practice. Furthermore, before action is taken on an application, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secre tary of Health, Education, and Welfare are requested to make recommendations with respect to matters in which they have an interest, including navigation, flood control, water pollution, public lands, and reservations under their supervision, fish and wildlife preservation, recreation, and other purposes. In this connec tion, notice of each application for a permit or license is referred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the Secretary of the Interior and to the State fish and wildlife agencies involved for reports and recommendations in accordance with the Wildlife Resources Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661). The question of the detrimental effect of a proposed project on the conservation of anadromous fish is one of several important "public interest" factors which must be considered in determining whether a project furthers the conservation and best possible utilization of the particular resources for all public purposes and thus meets the licensing requirements of the Federal Power Act. The Commission fully recognizes that there are occasions when the public is better served by retaining water resources in their natural state and forgoing water. power development. An instance is the proposed power development on the Namekagon River in Wisconsin. Notstanding the power benefits, the Commission denied a license. Its action was sustained by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Namekagon Hydro Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 216 F. 2d 509 (C.A. 7, 1954). The court there said that "Congress was aware that conflicting interests would, in all likelihood, be encountered when it formulated the statutory guides to be found in section 10 (a) of the act." The Commission by order issued October 24, 1962 (28 F.P.C. 718), ordered immediate changes to be made in two of the three fish ladders at the Rock Island Dam (Project No. 943) on the Columbia River in Washington to avoid the adverse effects on fish runs that would otherwise result from the construction downstream of the Wanapum Dam (Project No. 2114). The Commission also directed the licensees of both projects, in cooperation with representatives of the Department of Interior and the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Game, to develop a program for the study and evaluation of the further effects on fish passage at Rock Island Dam that may result from raising the water level downstream from that dam by construction and operation of the Wanapum project. On March 14, 1963, the Commission issued its Opinion No. 381 in Project No. 2082 (29 F.P.C. 478) directing the licensee, Pacific Power & Light Co., to construct, operate, and maintain fish hatchery and rearing facilities at its Iron Gate development on the Klamath River in California, as requested by the State of California Department of Fish and Game, in order to compensate for spawning areas rendered inaccessible by construction of the dam. Another recent case illustrates the situation where anadromous fish runs can be accommodated to full development for all beneficial purposes. In a proceeding involving the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, California (Project No. 2299), the Commission included a license condition sought by the State of California and the Secretary of the Interior, requiring the maintenance of water releases necessary to sustain a specified minimum run of salmon in the Tuolumne River (FPC Opinion No. 420, issued Mar. 10, 1964). In addition, the Commission by its order of May 6, 1964, on applications for rehearing in this proceeding required the applicant to cooperate in the submission of plans for undertaking continuing studies of the fish problem. In its Opinion No. 420 the Commission recognized that remedial measures at high dams have not always been successful, However, rather than forgo all power development on the Tuolumne River, a balancing of all considerations required that we include in the license conditions reasonably designed to preserve fish resources. The license embodies a condition requiring the licensee to construct such protective devices and modify projects works and operations as the Commission may prescribe upon its own motion or upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or State conservation agencies, as well as the standard license article (quoted above) providing that should the United States desire to construct fish-handling facilities, the licensee shall permit the United States to use its property free of cost. In summary, the history of this Commission in licensing matters during the past few years, and its recent actions in particular, show full awareness of and regard for the conservation of fish resources, as evidenced by the adoption of appropriate measures to secure the protection and enhancement of such resources whenever it is feasible to do so. May 1964. 1 Article 10 of the license reads as follows: The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish an wildlife resources, construct, maintain, and operate or arrange for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such facilities and comply with such reasonable modifications of the project structures and operation as may be ordered by the Commission upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or the fish and wildlife agency or agencies of any States in which the project or a part thereof is located, after notice and opportunity for hearing and upon findings based on substantial evidence that such facilities and modifications are necessary and desirable, reasonably consistent with the primary purpose of the project, and consistent with the provisions of the Act. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Repre sentatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Thank you for notification of the hearing to be held on bill H.R. 2392 on May 26, 27, and 28, 1964. I will not attend the hearing; however, I would like to reaffirm the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission's endorsement of this bill. The four member States of California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington are heartily in favor of this bill. Their sister State, Alaska, who has been unable to join the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission for financial reasons, is also strongly in favor of this bill Anadromous fishes are a major factor in the fishery budgets of each of these States. The fishes of major concern in this group are the salmon and steelhead which respect no State or National boundaries but which are so adversely sensitive to the influences of civilization on their environment. All the States have been hopefully anticipating favorable action on this bill because of the financial and recreational importance of anadromous fishes to the people of this Nation. Sincerely yours, LEON A. VERHOEVEN, Executive Director. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, WASHINGTON STATE SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL, INC.. Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Cannon Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BONNER: On behalf of approximately 300,000 citizens in the State of Washington who fish for anadromous fish, we would appreciate it if the following could be entered into the record when you hold hearings on H.R. 2392 and related bills. I understand these hearings are scheduled to be held May 26, 27, and 28 in Washington, D.C. Due to shortness of time, this is a general statement, but I hope it will convey to the committee the significance and values of the anadromous fish resources to Washington State. 1. SCOPE Steelhead trout are classified as a game fish in the State of Washington and 150,000 citizens participate in this fishing. Catch information, together with the recreational and economic values will be supplied by Washington Department of Game. Salmon are fished for both commercially and by sportsmen and it is anticipated that details of these values to the State's economy and recreation will be furnished by Washington Department of Fisheries. 2. MANAGEMENT Because of the tremendous multiple values of these fisheries, the management programs by the responsible agencies are well developed. Washington State has pioneered in research and development in production and management techniques so that it is regarded as a nationwide authority. Approximately 50 percent of the winter run steelhead now caught are considered to have originated as a result of this program. Sportsmen would welcome assistance in furthering development of these resources. It is our very insistent recommendations that any program which would emanate from this legislation should be administered by the appropriate State agencies. These agencies have the necessary knowledge. staff, and experience to obtain most productive results from expenditure of funds. 3. PROPOSED LEGISLATION In general, we support purposes of the legislation (provided adequate safeguards are included for the State management and control) although we are not familiar with amendments as proposed by Department of the Interior. We regret that distance and travel expense preclude our attendance at the hearings. We would appreciate a summary report of the hearings in order that we might evalu |