This letter is to provide for the record succinct answers to two questions which I answered at greater length during yesterday's hearing on Locks and Dam 26 and waterway user charges.

Senator Domenici asked my professional opinion on the proposed investigation and test program at Locks and Dam 26. My answer is:

"Correction of the problems at Locks and Dam 26 requires either
major rehabilitation or replacement. Because of the nature
and extent of the problems and the time required for either
major rehabilitation or replacement, we should reach a decision
and begin the work as soon as practicable. If the decision
were being made today, I would recommend replacement, as I
did in my testimony before the Committee last year and in the
report of the Chief of Engineers dated 31 July 1976. However,
uncertainties over the safety, reliability, and cost of major
rehabilitation are preventing a decision. Therefore, it is
essential to conduct as expeditiously as possible an investi-
gation and test program which will resolve these uncertainties."

You asked whether authorization of the Phase I design memorandum stage of advance engineering and design for Locks and Dam 26 would be advisable under the current circumstances. My answer is:

"Authorization of Phase I for Locks and Dam 26 is neither
necessary nor advisable. The report of the Chief of Engineers
dated 31 July 1976 now before the Congress fulfills all the

DAEN-CWZ-A

Honorable Mike Gravel

3 May 1977

requirements of the Phase I design memorandum stage of
advance engineering and design. Since the present Locks
and Dam 26 is an authorized project, the Corps of Engineers
has authority to repair and carry out investigations and
tests preliminary to any rehabilitation of the present
structures using Operation and Maintenance, General,
appropriations. If the investigation and test program
indicates that major rehabilitation is safe, reliable, and
more economical than the replacement project recommended in
the 31 July 1976 report, the Chief of Engineers can submit
a supplemental report setting forth the engineering aspects
of the major rehabilitation alternatives, including the
possible provision of a 1,200-foot lock in the present
dam, and file a supplemental environmental impact state-
ment. These documents, in conjunction with the 31 July
1976 report, will provide a complete basis for action by
the Congress."

I am advising the Chairmen of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the Public Works Subcommittees of the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations of my answers to these two questions.

Sincerely,

Ement Graves

ERNEST GRAVES

Major General, USA

Director of Civil Works

enator GRAVEL. Our next witness is Mr. Greenwalt, Director of . Fish and Wildlife Service.

enator MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I think General Graves is still in room. I just wonder if he might add to that evaluation of the er potential, if, as a matter of fact, the water is so darned high the locks are inoperative, then the locks have no valuation at that od of time. You ought to reduce the economic valuation. eneral GRAVES. We do take into account establishing the capacity he locks out of service periods. We can open the locks and transit fic through them if we don't have an unsafe situation.

enator MCCLURE. During that period of time the navigation could e occurred without the lock being there?

General GRAVES. That is true.

Senator GRAVEL. Mr. Greenwalt,?

ATEMENT OF LYNN A. GREENWALT, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[r. GREENWALT. Mr. Chairman, I think my prepared statement has n made available for the record.

Senator GRAVEL. It will be printed in the record. (See p. 1286.) Mr. GREENWALT. I would like to simply point out several things; st of all, that the history of the Mississippi River and its tributaries one rich in fish and wildlife values and upon which much of the ginal human activity in that area was based.

During the period of the thirties, the Mississippi River was modified rough the use of locks and dams, as has been described here, to faitate navigation. This modification has had a mixed blessing for fish d wildlife values. It has been advantageous by and large for fish d wildlife and has enabled us to begin to understand how navigaon and its related works can work together with the retention of fish d wildlife values.

The picture during the midfifties, however, has begun to reveal mething of the adverse side of the mixed blessings of which I deribed because the necessity for dredging and filling, the disposition soil resulting from maintenance regulation have created problems or fish and wildlife and their habitat along the river.

We think that we are beginning to understand these relationships etter than ever before and are beginning to see a response throughit the full spectrum of public interests, private interests, environental concerns, economic interests; perhaps most graphically dislayed in the operation of what is called the Great River Environental Action Team, a body of State, private, Federal interests which studying the environmental consequences of activities along the ver, of which locks and dam 26 is an integral part.

The master plans for the river from Minneapolis to Cario, Ill., is ndergoing construction right now. The first segment of the study overs the area from Minneapolis to Guttenberg, Iowa, and will be ompleted in about a year and a half. The second seqment of the study, overing Guttenberg to Saverton, Mo., is underway. The third and inal segment, covering Saverton to Cairo, is to be initiated shortly nd to be completed in 1983.

I make this point, Mr. Chairman, to underscore the fact that basic study for the management of the Mississippi River and its tri taries is, in fact, underway and proceeding apace.

Involved in this, of course, are considerations that I think are ve important when one looks at the decisions that are made ultimate about locks and damn 26. That has to do with the probable consequeL " and impacts, economically and environmentally up and down the rive: I would be delighted to answer any questions the committee may har I point out, also, the Department of the Interior has deferred to t Department of Transportation in terms of its position on the bills question.

Senator GRAVEL. Senator Domenici?

Senator DOMENICI. I just have one. I understand what you are say ing about the growing body of valuative information and techniques I don't understand whether you were saying that because this has taken place that if there is a delay of 18 months before final decisio is made, whether or not Fish and Wildlife could have a diferer: recommendation about locks and dam 26 than they had at this time or prior times or not.

Are you telling us that?

Mr. GREENWALT. I think there is every possibility that the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies dealing with this element of the cnvironment, might have a different position much depending on wha is revealed during the course of the studies. Much of this is based up the growing understanding of probable increases in traffic-related effects of that traffic in terms of water-related, industrial and barge handling developments, this sort of thing.

We are prepared to evaluate any of this information as it is developed and as a result, therefore, of conceivably the position of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Interior differ from that taken i former occasions. The addition of new information, new knowledge. clearly motivates us in that direction.

Senator DOMENICI. Are you agreeing with the recommended statement of the Secretary of Transportation for the administration o not?

Mr. GREENWALT. Yes, sir, I am.

Senator DOMENICI. I understood that they separated out a major, environmental, multiple-use study of the Mississippi from the 18month deferral for engineering reasons.

Mr. GREENWALT. That is correct, the 18-month study relates to strict technological engineering aspects of it, the broader range environmental study is a separate study, as I understand it.

Senator DOMENICI. His recommendation for the administration they were saying they ought to go with the broader environmenta evaluation and the prohibition against 12-foot of depth in channels. but that they were not related, at least the environmental study was a separate and distinct item unrelated to the propriety of proceeding with the lock.

Mr. GREENWALT. That is correct.

Senator DOMENICI. You are not changing that?
Mr. GREENWALT. No, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. I have no further questions.