IOWA Representative HENRY S. REUSS, DEPARTMENT OF SOIL CONSERVATION, Des Moines, Iowa, May 11, 1971. Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN REUSS: Your letter of April 26, 1971, has been received, in which you raise questions regarding various Federal agencies and their involvement with natural resource programs. The agency with which I am most familiar is the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Department of Soil Conservation for the State of Iowa works very closely with this Federal agency and I might say, our relationships have always been excellent. You specifically ask for our comments on these agencies and their responsibilities for operations concerning the improvement, modification and channelization of streams and rivers. In the State of Iowa the only problems that might arise with channelization would be the destruction of some gamebird habitat due to flooding of brushy areas in gullies and watercourses. There have been no problems in obtaining wildlife mitigation measures to replace these areas lost to flooding. In most cases the local people have given free easements for wildlife mitigation measures and the State conservation commission is paying the local cost-sharing of construction of the wildlife and enhancement measures. We have experienced no problem in Iowa with destruction of fisheries or waterfowl or deer habitat. The department of soil conservation would like to state that the Soil Conservation Service is doing an excellent job in Iowa in all areas and the only problem involved is lack of sufficient funds to furnish the type of assistance which the local people expect and require for their soil and water conservation programs. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM H. GREINER, Director. IOWA CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Hon. HENRY S. REUSS, Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN REUSS: Our primary concern over the adverse effects on our streams and rivers by actions of the various Federal agencies is channelization and large flood control impoundments. The two agencies responsible for these projects in Iowa are the Corps of Engineers and the soil conservation service. We have opposed channelization of any stream or river because of destruction of fish and wildlife habitat, loss of timber, destruction of aesthetic values, and increased downstream flows. We have usually opposed large flood control reservoirs for many of the same reasons and for lack of consideration of proper soil management in the drainage area. These reservoirs often are limited in recreational opportunity because of high fluctuations of water levels. Though large reservoirs are fairly new in Iowa, they are already filling rapidly with silt. We recently wrote all of our Senators and Congressmen urging their support of H.R. 200 with suggested modifications. I am enclosing copies of the letter and the suggested modification of the bill. I believe they are self-explanatory. At the present time we devote a great deal of effort and money to working on these projects. Much of our work is defensive and many times our recommendations are ignored. We sincerely believe that the enactment of H.R. 200 as modified and similar legislation covering other conservation interests would alleviate most of the problems now occurring in this State. Yours very truly, Hon. NEAL SMITH, Congress of the United States, IOWA CONSERVATION COMMISSION, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: A copy of H.R. 200 has recently come to our attention. It strengthens the interests of conservation and provides for planning input by State agencies before the project has progressed to the "point-of-noreturn" as is often the present situation. With the modifications as noted in the bill it can offer States, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the opportunity to recapture large expenditures imposed by the projects. Presently, agency finances and program disruption are lost in necessary defensive tactics by the conservation agencies. The principles inherent in this legislation (covering fish and wildlife interests) should also be applicable to other specific conservation oriented interests such as recreation, open space, historical, biological and archaeological as under the jurisdiction of other Departments of the Interior (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, National Park Service, etc.). Your support of this proposed legislation and of similar legislation covering other conservation interests is desired. Sincerely, FRED A. PRIEWERT, Director, State Conservation Commission. (SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE.-The modifications referred to by Mr. Priewert appear in section 3 and are set forth in brackets.) [H.R. 200, 92d Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2(a) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 662(a)) is further amended to read as follows: "Except as hereafter stated in subsection (h) of this section, whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or modified for any purpose whatever, including navigation and drainage, by any department or agency of the United States, or by any public or private agency under Federal permit or license or with Federal financial or technical assistance, such department or agency first shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the particular State wherein the impoundment, diversion, or other control facility is to be constructed, with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to such resources as well as providing for the development and improvement thereof in connection with such water-resource development." SEC. 2. Section 2(b) of such act (16 U.S.C. 662(b)) is amended by (a) striking the words "engineering surveys and construction" and substituting therefor the words "planning, engineering surveys, or construction"; (b) by striking the comma after "(2) to approve a report on the modification or supplementation of plans for previously authorized projects" and inserting thereafter "or (3) to authorize Federal financial or technical assistance for the planning or implementation of such projects,"; and (c) by striking the words "reporting agency finds should be adopted" and substituting therefor the words "Secretary of the Interior recommends". SEC. 3. Section 2(e) of such act (16 U.S.C. 662(e)) is amended to read as follows: "In the case of construction by a Federal agency or the provision of Federal financial or technical assistance, that Federal agency which carries out the construction or provides the financial or technical assistance is authorized to transfer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [and to the respective state conservation agencies] out of appropriations or other funds made available for investigations, engineering, or construction such funds as may be necessary to conduct all or part of the investigations required to carry out the purposes of this section." SEC. 4. There is hereby repealed in its entirety section 12 of that act known as the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1008). Hon. HENRY S. REUSS, KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, FORESTRY, FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, Pratt, Kans., May 24, 1971. Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, DEAR SIR: This agency has maintained reasonably cordial relations with all federal construction agencies relative to the planning, development and operation of water projects. We have availed ourselves of all opportunities to attend public hearings and interagency meetings. In many instances it has been our experience to object to various construction and operations plans and have our comments and recommendations denied or ignored. However, in the past year we have been pleased to note a significant change in attitudes by these agencies toward environmental concerns. Specifically we have objected to all stream channelization proposals in principle while concurring in those that effect significant flood control benefits in residential and industrial situations. In the past two decades the Kansas Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission has, through licenses or memorandums of understanding, obtained operational control to certain lands for public hunting benefits on 16 of the 19 major reservoir projects constructed in this State. Development and operation of these recreational lands have been accomplished with State and Pittman-Robertson funds. At the same time, the construction agencies (Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation) have done little to mitigate significant losses to wildlife habitat resulting from project construction. Yet these same agencies tend to discount these losses by pointing with pride to the creation of other recreational benefits. Despite the existence of these benefits it must be remembered that most are the indirect result of construction and would have occurred in any event. These benefits do not in any way mitigage the irretrievable losses of stream fishery and wildlife habitat resulting from the flooding of a stream valley. In like manner the SCS has discounted environmental losses resulting from the construction of watershed projects. Since the publication of SCS memos 101 through 108, we find that organization much more conciliatory in recognizing habitat losses resulting from stream channel and structural "improvements". This organization subscribes to the contention that channelization does result in adverse effects on the environment. These include the destruction of stream fishery and wildlife habitat, impaired esthetic values and a period of increased erosion and siltation following the construction of channel "improvements". Although the SCS maintains that watershed lakes, with or without stream channelization, regulate and improve downstream flows, such flows may actually be decreased during normal or drought periods as a result of project construction. While individual landowners or watershed districts do provide the lands on which watershed lakes are constructed, public funds are used to build these projects. For this reason I feel that public access should be provided to a portion of the lakes in each district. Toward this end, the Kansas Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission is now working with two large watersheds so that we might participate in the recreational development and enhancement on certain structures, thus guaranteeing public access. We have also budgeted for a full-time biologist whose sole duty will be devoted to working with the SCS and the local sponsors on watershed projects. Occasionally watershed and other Federal water projects provide for the cropping of lands not farmed previously. As a project objective I see this as an unjustified purpose while this Nation is still faced with farm commodity surpluses and has other federally financed programs that provide for reduction in croppable acreages. In many instances projects provide flood control benefits that encourage landowners to remove reparian vegetation (primarily shrubs and trees) thus bringing additional lands into production for grazing or crops. These areas of riparian cover are frequently the finest wildlife habitat found on many farms and ranches. At the same time, a number of ASCS practices are available to provide Federal financing for the establishment of fish and wildlife habitat. Still other ASCS practices provide funding for the removal of unwanted vegetation (again these are frequently areas of excellent wildlife habitat). These latter programs are usually on an 80-20 cost-share basis while wildlife development is financed at 50-50. Overall it would appear that wildlife is constantly relegated to the status of a poor cousin and the outlook for the future is bleak despite the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, SCS Memorandum 108, etc. Attached is a brief summary of various channelization projects in Kansas, relating some of the adverse effects of each. Yours truly, Attachment. GEORGE C. MOORE, Director. KANSAS CHANNELIZATION PROJECTS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Stranger Creek-Leavenworth County, Kans. Cleared 50 miles of stream for a distance of 50 feet on either side resulting in the removal of 2,277 acres of timber and brush. Eleven cutoffs totaling 3.6 miles, eliminated 13 miles of natural stream. This was called a small flood control project. The Kansas Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission objected strongly to the project. The corps ignored these objections, suggested alternatives or desired mitigation measures. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Bee Creek Watershed-Chautauqua-Montgomery Counties, Kans. Resulted in fish and wildlife habitat destruction through the channelization of Bee and Cotton Creeks (3 miles of improvement on each). Lost Creek Pilot Watershed-Lincoln County, Kans. Detrimental effects were primarily to wildlife habitat-Lost Creek did not support a significant fishery. Approximately 0.8 mile of Lost Creek and its tributaries were channelized virtually eliminating the entire stream and riparian wildlife habitat. This is a small watershed containing only three structures. KENTUCKY KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hon. HENRY S. REUSS, Frankfort, Ky., May 19, 1971. Chairman, Conservation & Natural Resources Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In answer to your letter of April 26, relative to your subcommittee's investigation of Federal agencies, we submit the following: "For the past several years we have had a fine relationship with the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service. We have had several stream improvement projects by both of these agencies here in Kentucky, and several more are planned. It is true that some mistakes have been made on a few projects, and they have been brought out to everyone's attention, while the successes these agencies have to their credit have been neglected by the public. Both the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service are doing an excellent job of keeping this department informed of their proposed projects and the progress of their projects under construction. With the increased demand on land and the need for land-use planning, this department should be informed by these agencies when an initial request is made for their assistance." Let me say the department, in addition to the two organizations named above, has had much work with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Water Resources Council. Our relationship with these two has been one of cooperation and the results have been gratifying. We do feel at times that there is some needless delay because of technical questions and problems that is not felt essential. Since the questions of environment and ecology have become so paramount in the thinking of many of our citizens, it is our thinking that each project must be looked at closely so that any adverse effects that may tend to depreciate our environment further can be eliminated and steps taken to upgrade any adverse environmental conditions. In the final analysis, the social and economic balance of what is best for our citizens should guide the decisions. Very truly yours, JAMES S. SHROPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF FISH and WILDLIFE RESOURCES, Frankfort, Ky., May 28, 1971. Congressman HENRY REUSS, Chairman, House Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN REUSS: I would appreciate having the enclosed statement entered in the record of hearings on watershed channelization. This department is very concerned about the effects of channelization upon the environment and, especially, upon our vanishing wildlife wet lands and tributary streams. I commend you for your efforts in behalf of conservation of our natural resources and wish you success in your endeavor. Sincerely, BERNARD T. CARTER, Assistant Commissioner. STATEMENT PREPARED BY JOE BRUNA, GAME BIOLOGIST WITH THE Congressman Reuss and committee members: the State of Kentucky has 24 Public Law 566 watershed projects authorized for planning and/or construction, involving approximately 1,595,000 acres of land and 409 miles of stream channel "improvements." To date, approximately 120 miles of channel "improvement" has been completed. A large portion of the planned channelization is concentrated in west Kentucky, where our best wildlife wet lands are located. This portion of the State is in the path of the Mississippi waterfowl flyway and its overflow bottomland timber serves as resting and feeding areas for migrating waterfowl and shore birds. Presently, five west Kentucky watershed projects which include Obion Creek, west fork of Mayfield Creek, west and east forks of Pond River and Clear Creek are scheduled to channelize 193 miles of streams. These main channels will enable private landowners to clear and drain approximately 10,000 to 15,000 acres of valuable wildlife wetlands, including hardwood timber. In addition to the outright destruction of wildlife wet lands habitat through clearing and drainage, altered hydrologic conditions on additional thousands of acres would lower fish and wildlife habitat values. A virgin cypress swamp known as Murphy's Pond is endangered by the Obion Creek channel. This area has been purchased for preservation by a loan from the Nature Conservancy. A majority of these cleared bottom lands will go into the production of corn and soybeans. Despite national farm statistics which show a decline in cropland and the number of farms, a substantial acreage of new lands is brought into cultivation through federally subsidized drainage, clearing, and irrigation projects. Since a major agricultural problem is crop surpluses, bringing new land into crop production and increasing production on present crop land through clearing and drainage is questionable economics. In addition to contributing to surplus, price supported grains, clearing and drainage is reducing a wildlife resource for which there is an increasing demand. During 1968, the 10 counties included in the above five watershed projects, diverted 134,175 acres of feed grains through the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service's feed grain program. According to agricultural statistics, there were more acres planted to corn and soybeans in west Kentucky during 1966 than 1963. The first annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality (1970) stated, "Although some shifts in agricultural land use are clearly necessary, there is no coherent policy to assure that environmentally damaging projects are kept to a minimum. We continue to develop flood plains, then spend millions to protect man's use of them from natural flooding cycles." (1) Reclamation of low lying agricultural lands, swamps, and forested bottom lands is a high cost enterprise. A 1969 study by Goldstein, indicated that the cost of drainage of permanent wetlands is sufficiently high that it would be uneconomical for a landowner if he paid the entire cost and if the market were free and competitive for agricultural products (2). Calculations based upon data contained in the west fork of Mayfield Creek watershed work plan, show that Public Law 566 moneys allocated only to structural measures (dams and channels), amounted to $266 per acre for the 7,300 acre flood plain area benefited by these measures. Channelization costs alone amounted to $69 per acre. The average value of the entire watershed lands was computed at $250 per acre in 1967. These figures do not include total Federal allocations, but only moneys for structural measures. Similarly, on the Obion Creek watershed project, Public Law 566 estimated costs for all structural measures amounted to $118 per acre for the 14,100 acres for |