impact information for their respective properties-this to be done cooperatively with the U.S. Forest Service or under the supervision of the State Department of Natural Resources;

3. that King and Snohomish Counties establish zones now to restrict nonagricultural uses of lands in the flood plain;

4. that industrial and urban development be scheduled for bench lands between the Cascade foothills and Puget Sound rather than riverbottom agricultural lands; and

5. that game mitigation be accomplished on such projects by managing lands for both timber and game production in place of single use for game and that Federal lands be made available for mitigation purposes when single use for game production is recommended.

Hon. HENRY S. REUSS,

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,

Olympia, Wash., June 2, 1971.

Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.Ć.

DEAR MR. REUSS: Your letter of April 26, 1971, regarding the impact on fish and wildlife resulting from federally financed projects is difficult to answer because of the great variety of projects and circumstances involved over the years and throughout the State of Washington.

Without doubt, the Columbia River watershed of this State has experienced the greatest change by reason of Federal projects, principally those of water use on the mainstem and on the Yakima River, a tributary. Early projects such as water storage dams constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation at Kachess, Kectchelus, Cle Elum, Bumping, Tieton, etc., provided no fish facilities nor funds in compensation for anadromous fish losses. The latter in terms of spawning and rearing areas lost above the dams, and more important, the downstream losses resulting from low river flows remaining in the natural channel and increased water temperatures.

In recent years, through planning efforts with the Bureau of Reclamation, the projected increase in water storage at Bumping, a Yakima River tributary, is to be at least one-half utilized for downstream fisheries benefits. This will be achieved through the regulation of water release during low-flow periods. Commendable as is this belated planning effort, there has been more than 60 years of annual harvest loss of salmon to date and undoubtedly several more before project benefits

commence.

Similar to the above example, salmon losses have been experienced for many years at the Corps of Engineers' Mud Mountain Dam on White River. Flood control manipulations here are simply not compatible with the downstream necessities for good salmon production.

Salmon losses (both adult and juvenile) resulting from Corps dams on the mainstem Columbia, have been only partially mitigated. Fish facilities to mitigate losses caused by John Day Dam, for instance, will not commence making up losses in the fisheries for several more years.

For many years Corps of Engineers' stream diking projects for flood control were accomplished without consideration of impact on fish resources. Now, under Federal law, State agencies can review plans for many Federal and Federal assistance projects so that resource impact can be predicted and planning done to alleviate losses, if that is necessary.

The more recent opportunities to review Federal and Federal aid projects, then, is a big step in the right direction. To be effective though, the subsequent steps of providing the facilities and/or funding necessary to prevent resource damage, or compensate for it, are equally important.

Finally, there are the adverse effects of projects which cannot always be predicted. An excellent example of this is the nitrogen problem on the Columbia River, now being investigated by the State fishery agencies and the Corps of Engineers. Supersaturation of the water with nitrogen, caused by excess water spilling at the mainstem dams, damages not only the adult runs of fish on their way upstream but the millions of juvenile salmon and steelhead migrating to the ocean. This loss is additional to the recognized and significant losses from other causes in the reservoirs and at the dams proper.

In the State of Washington, a high percentage of urban and rural construction projects have an impact on the fish resource, directly and indirectly. Each project must be examined for its probable effect. It is difficult, therefore, to determine adverse effects until a review has been made of plans, specifications and operating methods and procedures.

In summary, this Department is encouraged by the trend of coordinating efforts and would certainly look forward to continuance and expansion of the review procedure and the implementation of recommendations.

Very truly yours,

THOR C. TOLLEFSON, Director.

Hon. HENRY S. REUSS

DEPARTMENT OF GAME,

Olympia, Wash., June 11, 1971.

Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee,

House of Representatives,

Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C."

DEAR CONGRESSMAN REUSS: We apologize for not meeting your deadline relative to comments on stream improvement projects in the State of Washington, and we recognize that you have probably already completed your hearings on this subject. However, we do want to offer some comments that may be of some value to you in your future deliberations on this matter.

Generally speaking, fish and wildlife have been considered only as an afterthought in planning water development projects. Fish and wildlife values are considered only when they are needed to improve the cost-benefit ratio of the project or when public opinion dictates that this resource must be given adequate consideration. Most projects are developed for other purposes, and fish and wildlife agencies must then fit their plans in something which has already been programed; therefore, the results are less than desirable.

Primarily, benefits that can occur from water development projects, as far as fish are concerned, result from low flow augmentation; however, many times these advantages are far outweighed by damages that occur to this resource. There are, however, some exceptions to this statement. The Bumping Lake project being proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation for construction on the Yakima River system, as designed, will have very few detrimental effects on wildlife and will provide extensive benefits to both resident and anadromous fish. Another project that probably provided overall benefits to fish and wildlife was the construction of Grand Coulee Dam and the resultant Columbia Basin project. Although Grand Coulee Dam destroyed the anadromous fish runs in the Upper Columbia River, it has, through creation of irrigation projects, increased wildlife numbers and also game fish populations by the formation of new fishing waters in former arid areas. The sad thing here, of course, is that it was not possible to preserve the anadromous fish runs.

Our greatest problem in this State has been with the Corps of Engineers and their construction projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. You may be aware of the nitrogen supersaturation problem that exists on these rivers, which may result in nearly total destruction of the anadromous fish runs of these once great rivers in spite of the expenditure of millions of dollars for fish passage facilities. Heavy spilling of water at these projects causes the water to become supersaturated with nitrogen, which then results in destruction of both juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead. This problem, at this time, is an extremely critical one, and unless solutions can be developed to solve the problem, we fear that the fish runs cannot survive.

You may also be aware of the problems we are having with the Corps of Engineers in obtaining satisfactory mitigation for fish and wildlife losses caused by their projects. We are presently suing the corps for violation of the Wildlife Coordination Act since they have not consulted with the State fish and wildlife agencies to determine necessary means to mitigate these losses.

Some of these same problems that we have had with the Corps of Engineers relative to project planning, have also occurred with the Bureau of Reclamation. Primarily, planning by this agency relates to storage and irrigation, and once their plans are developed, they then attempt to incorporate planning for fish and wildlife. This planning, however, to be effective, must be developed simultaneously. The Bureau's projects on the Yakima River system, which were

constructed during the early 1900's, of course, whould not have included planning for fish and wildlife. Their projects today are, therefore, still being operated primarily as irrigation water storage projects, and little, if any, consideration is being given to the protection or enhancement of existing fishery resources in this river and its tributaries. Discussions with the Bureau have not resulted in a satisfactory solution to the problem; however, the construction of the previously referred to Bumping Lake project would be of value in maintaining somewhat satisfactory river flows throughout the entire river system.

We have only been involved in a few Soil Conservation Service projects, and although many of their earlier practices were detrimental to fish and wildlife, they have been receptive to change and we now are involved in some excellent programs with them relative to wildlife enhancement. One area involving the Soil Conservation Service that does leave something to be desired relates to projects approved by the county committees for the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Many of them involve stream channel straightening, deepening and widening, and result in total destruction of fish habitat in those altered stream areas. Many of the problems could be resolved merely by some riprapping of banks or leaving normal stream side vegetation intact rather than removing it to simplify farming operations.

These are only a frew problems that we have had with government age7cies and water development projects. We feel the basic problem involved relates to the lack of adequate planning at an early stage in project development to insure that fish and wildlife are given adequate and sincere consideration. If initial planning included fish and wildlife, I am certain that many of the problems, which have occurred in the past, could be eliminated in the future.

Very truly yours,

RALPH W. LARSON,

Assistant Director.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,

June 17, 1971.

Representative HENRY S. REUSS,

Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE REUSS: The Washington State Department of Ecology has become cognizant of an effort to have Congress declare that it is in the public interest to suspend all channelization projects funded by Federal agencies.

In our view, the consideration of a year's moratorium will seriously affect ongoing and planned projects in the State of Washington which are designed for the multiple benefits of flood prevention, water supply, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and economic development.

The State of Washington has developed and placed into action adequate safeguards to assure proper review and approval of projects that include channelization and thereby protect the interest of the State's citizens in water and adjacent land

resources.

The Washington State Department of Ecology has been designated by Governor Daniel J. Evans as the State agency to coordinate projects and project applications under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566. In carrying out this responsibility, this department receives all applications from local entities of government involving use of Public Law 566 and may approve or disapprove such applications and establish priority on the basis of environmental impact in proper balance with the needs of its State's citizens.

Local organizations are required to obtain construction permits from the Departments of Ecology and where Federal assistance is contemplated, give notice of intent and submit to the Department a detailed statement on:

(a) The environmental impact of the proposed action.

(b) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.

(c) Alternatives to the proposed action, and

(d) The relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity. Our experience has been that planned and implemented small watershed projects under Public Law 566 are needed and desired by local people and have provided benefits of flood control and economic betterment for the community. They have

been comprehensively planned and have protected or enhanced environmental quality.

The State of Washington has contributed technical engineering and monetary assistance to each of the completed Public Law 566 projects within the State. Environmental safeguards are in force, beginning with the application and continuing through design, installation, and final operation and maintenance.

The Department of Ecology respectfully requests that the Congress continue to support funding of Federal projects that involve channel alterations, rather than to withhold funds for one year. A moratorium would not benefit our State's present comprehensive programing, but would only tend to halt or delay on-going or planned projects.

Very truly yours,

Hon. HENRY REUSS,

Congress of the United States, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN REUSS: We have been deeply concerned with the adverse effects of federally constructed and financially aided stream alterations on wildlife and wildlife habitat. This letter is being submitted for the record in regard to your stream channelization hearings.

The department feels that too often insufficient consideration is given to environmental quality, including fish and wildlife and recreational considerations, during the formulation and evaluation of federally sponsored stream and river channeling projects. Many beneficial public uses of rivers and streams do not lend themselves to existing economic project evaluation criteria. Intangibles must be properly weighed and evaluated. The continued destruction of stream habitat on a project-by-project basis represents drastic losses that should be curtailed. Alternate solutions are often available to accomplish desired fiood control and other project purposes. It is felt that when a federally financed project calls for stream disturbance work that would change the slope, direction, or cross section of designated quality streams within a basin, the State natural resources/wildlife agency should be consulted for alternative suggestions. Stream and wildlife resource damage that could not be avoided should require full mitigation by the sponsoring agency.

Developments associated with small watershed Public Law 566 projects also must have proper consideration. Projects in this category, unless properly coordinated, often are subject to less control, evaluation, alternative flexibility, mitigation, and compensatory provisions than other water and channeling related projects.

I am attaching for the subcommittee's information a copy of the proceedings of the interagency stream disturbance symposium held in Charleston, W. Va., in 1968.

Sincerely yours,

IRA S. LATIMER, Jr., Director.