(e) According to the Atlanta regional office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the corps has not acquired even 1 acre of wildlife mitigation lands at any of its projects, including those involving channelization, in the Southeastern United States since the Coordination Act was amended in 1958. This subcommittee should be informed (i) by the corps, why it has not acquired such lands; and (ii) by the Bureau, as to which are the projects in the Southeast where acquisition of wildlife mitigation land was recommended and authorized but not yet accomplished.

19. The draft A. D. Little report pointed out that its investigation showed that "serious inequities now prevail" because "in many instances" there was "disproportionate assignment of Federal funding" in projects where the prevailing function was more "land drainage" than "flood control." The draft report also noted that there were "outstanding instances" of large rural land or urban property owners being "subsidized substantially-and needlessly in terms of their ability to pay for the minor channel work that were installed" (pp. 35–36). (a) What steps have been taken by these agencies to minimize these inequities, as well as to identify all beneficiaries of a project?

IV. Specific projects of general interest

20. The Alcovy project.

In 1971, the Interior and Agriculture Departments agreed that the plans for the Alcovy River watershed in Georgia should "be reevaluated *** for the purpose of elimination of that portion of planned stream channel alterations below the downstream impoundments along those reaches in which natural resources would be significantly damaged." A January 1972 summary report by the two agencies states (p. 5) that this reevaluation was "to start with the assumption that there was a valid need" for the project and within a 90-day period the two agencies were to review "as many practical alternatives as possible to develop" a project that would have "the least adverse environmental effect." The report also states (p. 6) that Interior concentrated "primarily" in the recreation, fish, and wildlife fields. "Interior efforts in the economic, engineering, and hydrology fields were limited to a rather cursory review of existing data collected and developed by SCS and routed through SCS procedures and methodology to reach the conclusions." In accordance with the agreement between the two agencies, no attempts were made by Interior participants to collect or reformulate basic data which would lead to a total reevaluation of the economic and engineering aspects of the project.

SCS and Interior should:

(a) State when the final report of this "reevaluation" will be complete and available for public review and comment;

(b) Explain why the study team (i) was allowed only 90 days, (ii) was required to assume that the project was needed, and (iii) did not collect data for a "total reevaluation" of the economic and engineering aspects, in performing its study.

21. The Starkweather project.

In a letter of March 16, 1972, to this subcommittee, the Interior Department said it could "make no defense" of the Starkweather project in North Dakota from the standpoint of "environmental soundness." Interior noted that the project work plan has been "revised" and that the "most important of the revisions" were the provisions (a) for "preservation" of 13,500 acres or equivalent of type 3 and 4 wetlands, and (b) prohibited construction of the project "until all preservation measures to compensate for wetland loss are fulfilled." This was done pursuant to a January 1970 agreement between Interior, SCS, the project sponsors, and the North Dakota State Water Commission. Last March, however, Interior informed this subcommittee that as of January 1, 1972, this goal had not been reached. Interior then said:

"We believe that the agreed upon permanent protection of 13,500 acres of wetlands by placing them in Federal ownership and control goes a long way toward making the project acceptable from an environmental standpoint, but we are the first to admit that unmitigatable losses to wildlife will nevertheless occur with development of the project. Some of these losses would occur without the project, but our position from the outset of planning has been that the project will facilitate pothole drainage which would not occur or would occur later without the project."

In October 1971, the agreement was modified, pursuant to an "understanding" reached with the Governor of North Dakota, (a) "that the Bureau of Sport

94-076 O 732

Fisheries and Wildlife could acquire land along legal subdivision lines, and of whole ownerships where necessary, to facilitate purchase of land which the owner would not sell in small or 'odd lots'"; and (b) "that one-to-one credit (i.e., 1 acre credited toward the total goal for each acre purchased) would be granted for all acres acquired, including those areas which are of no particular value to waterfowl but which are acquired to block out an ownership."

The SCS's August 1972 revised draft environmental statement noted that this project will involve 60.6 miles of streams, including 44.7 miles of "unmodified well defined natural channel"; include "on farm field ditches * * * to convey flood flows back to channels"; "drain 345 acres" of types 3 and 4 wetlands and despite the wetland preservation plans, enable "local interests to extend the project works *** to drain, without Federal assistance, approximately 4,000 acres of types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands"; and "insure the preservation of the equivalent of 13,500 acres of types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands habitat for wildlife use."

Last October, the National Wildlife Federation and six other environmental organizations, in a letter to SCS, claimed:

(i) That Interior has acquired "only 960 actual wetland acres" in fee and 5,473 acres by Federal easement;

(ii) That the sponsors' claimed acquisition of wetland easements totals 2,052 acres, but this includes "some cases duplicative of easements already obtained" by Interior;

(iii) That not more than 8,485 acres of "actual wetlands that may be preserved" have actually been acquired, and not the "13,500 as claimed" (in the draft impact statement); and

(iv) That the project "will result in destroying at least 10,000 acres of wetlands in the Starkweather boundaries."

On October 31, 1972, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department said that only 45 percent of type 3 and 4 wetlands will be protected and that about 9,837 acres of such lands "remain unprotected." Moreover, that agency said:

"It should also be noted that the 1969 Work Plan (July 1969) states on page 13 that one of the minimum objectives agreed upon is to '(5) preserve or compensate for 75 percent of the existing 18,000 acres of type 3 and 4 wetlands within the watershed,' while the summary sheet of the USDA environmental statement (revised for the Starkweather Watershed (August 1972)," under item V, summary of environmental effects, states that project action will 'preserve the equivalent of 75 percent of the existing types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands'; type 5 wetlands have, to our knowledge, always been considered permanent and 'untouchable' to date. No mention was made of any drainage of type 5 wetlands in the work plan for the Starkweather watershed, and it was always assumed that these large permanent open-water marshes would not be subject to drainage in this project designed by the Soil Conservation Service. It is therefore somewhat of a shock to see type 5 wetlands included in the USDA environmental statement (revised) of August 1972, as something the project includes in a statement to 'preserve the equivalent of 75 percent'."

(a) To what extent did Interior provide the public opportunity to review and comment on the adequacy of the joint agreement?

(b) If the NWF's figures on wetland acquisition and wetland destruction are accurate, what is the basis for the assertion that the project will preserve 13,500 acres of valuable wetlands?

(c) How many acres of land that are of "no particular value to waterfowl" have been credited by the Interior Department toward the 13,500 acre total referred to in the joint agreement?

(d) How many acres of (i) type 3, (ii) type 4, and (iii) type 5, lands will be affected by the project directly or indirectly?

(e) Why should the SCS proceed with this project as planned if it will result in "potential" loss of an additional 4,000 acres of valuable wetlands?

(f) Since mitigation offers only a partial replacement of natural wetlands lost. is it likely that there will be an overall loss in such production as a result of the project?

(g) In the computation of the benefit/cost ratio of this project, (i) are the benefits of the wetlands which are acquired with Duck Stamp funds under the 1961 Accelerated Wetlands Acquisition program (16 U.S.C. 715k-3, et seq.) included in the computation of benefits, and (ii) are those funds included in the computation of costs?

(h) The law gives SCS discretion in the financing of the project. Furthermore, the Water Bank Act declares that it is in the "public interest" to preserve wetlands of the Nation." In addition, NEPA (which supplements the policies of Pub

lic Law 566) declares that the Federal Government should "use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance," to improve our environment. In view of these facts, what consideration has SCS given to conditioning its agreement with the project sponsors to require that they shall not drain any of the additional 4,000 acres of wetlands mentioned above during the life of the project?

(i) What binding assurances did the local sponsors provide to insure that all proposed wildlife management practices of the project will be carried out?

(j) What is the relationship of this project to the nearby Edmore watershed project and the planned Garrison Diversion?

(k) EPA's February 5, 1973, comment on the SCS draft environmental impact statement concerning this project stated as follows:

"*** We are of the opinion that the Starweather watershed project as proposed will result in many unacceptable environmental impacts. Included are the following major and severe effects:

"1. Construction of channels and resultant drainage of wetlands will allow waters rich in nutrients, dissolved solids, and sediment to flow into Dry Lake and Devils Lake, aggravating an already severe water quality problem. Further eutrophication and additions to salt loads in Devils Lake are our primary concerns and we feel that project plans have not considered these problems.

"2. Reduction of flooding in the southern sections of the watershed may allow more lands to come into agricultural production. If soils of the area are not effective retainers of chemicals from fertilizers and pesticides, increased runoff may transport significant quantities of these substances into Dry Lake and Devils Lake, thus aggravating existing adverse conditions. The final statement should provide evidence that polluted agricultural runoff will not increase as a result of the project.

"3. The wetlands complexes and intermittent coulees of the area support wildlife resources of national significance. Further, the natural wetlands act as sediment, water, and nutrient traps and support a complex and diverse ecological system. Channelization in the watershed would drastically alter these systems. In our view, the overall adverse environmental, social, and economic consequences of enlarging and strengthening stream channels having such significant natural values will outweigh the beneficial effects. The burden of proof for demonstrating otherwise should properly be borne by those advocating such environmentally disruptive measures. Studies should be implemented which would include objective and thorough analysis of all viable nonstructural and structural alternatives and of the cumulative effects (i.e. environmental, social, and economic consequences) of the proposed channelization program. Such studies should also include a detailed analysis of the long-term effects of the project, including the effects on the adjacent (and hydrologically inseparable) Edmore watershed.

"4. Discussions in the draft environmental statement primarily represent project justification and a limited description of some of the expected environmental effects. Many environmental questions were not answered in the draft statement. For example, project plans and the environmental statement have not given thorough consideration to water quality; groundwater resources; the hydrologic balances of the wetlands area; and the complex ecosystems of the pothole environment. Further, the relationship of the Starkweather project and the planned Garrison Diversion and resultant long-term effects on Devils Lake was not considered in sufficient detail." (Italic supplied.)

(A) What consideration has SCS given to, and made studies of, the water quality. hydrologic, and groundwater problems referred to by EPA?

(B) How much acreage will "come into agricultural production" as a result of the project?

(C) Will the "studies" recommended by EPA be undertaken and completed before project construction is carried forward?

22. Cameron Creole project.—

In 1967, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife said that this project "will have a significant effect on a large acreage of high value fish and wildlife habitat, including 14,926 acres of the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge." In June 1971, the SCS conservationist said:

"We have not prepared an environmental impact statement on this project. The Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and local sportsmen's groups participated in the development of the work plan for this watershed project. They have recently requested some minor modifications in the levee to alleviate possible problems that recent experimental work indicated could occur. We have concurred in their recommendations and we know of no adverse results from this project." (Italic supplied.)

In August 1971, this subcommittee asked the SCS to explain the legal basis for not preparing a statement. In his August 23, 1971, reply, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture T. K. Cowden said:

"In the initial review conducted pursuant to Watersheds Memorandum 108 the Cameron-Creole watershed project was placed in Group 2 because of environmental impacts. Subsequent to this action contacts were made by personnel of the Soil Conservation Service of this Department with representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheres Commission. Agreement was reached with these agencies to some modifications of the structural measures which would reduce or remove the adverse environmental impacts. It was agreed that the remaining impacts would not be significant. * **

"This agreement to the modifications changed the grouping under Memorandum 108 from 2 to 1. Since the modified plan would have no significant adverse environmental impacts, no environmental impact statement was required under [CEQ] Guideline 11. Also Watersheds Memorandum 108 provides that once agreement is reached with the concerned fish and wildlife agencies that a project is in Group 1, works of improvement 'can be implemented without further action except for minor changes of design and specifications and of construction drawings already prepared.' Fence invitations for bids were solicited in July. "Subsequent to this action, you, the National Audubon Society and the Sierra Club have raised questions as to the environmental impact and the adequacy of the considerations given to the environmental values. The questions which you and they have raised would now appear to bring a degree of controversy into the proposed action. Therefore, under the provisions of [CEQ] Guideline 5(b) we are developing an environmental impact statement in accordance with Section 102 (2) (C)."

Later in October 1971, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife commented on SCS's impact statement as follows:

"You must surely recognize the dilemma facing the Fish and Wildlife Service in commenting on this project. The project has been significantly altered at the last moment, and the effects on the extremely important marine fisheries resource remain largely unanswered. Although the Service agreed to participate in the watershed project, our many trepidations were pointed out in our 1967 report, and many of these same problems remain unanswered at the present time."

In January 1972 the Under Secretary of the Interior commented on the SCS impact statement and called for "more comprehensive studies" of the project "on the environmental impacts, particularly on marine and estuarine resources.” He further said:

"*** we strongly urge that the draft environmental statement be withdrawn because of its inadequacy, its lack of full coverage of the plan as now visualized, and the remaining uncertainty as to the environmental effects."

Despite the Under Secretary's request that the impact statement be "withdrawn," the SCS filed its final statement in February 1972.

(a) Why did the SCS ignore the Under Secretary of the Interior's request for further "studies" of this project?

(b) What are the Interior Department's current views on the adequacy of the SCS impact statement and the project's potential effects on marine resources and the wildlife refuge?

V. OTHER MATTERS

23. In response to this subcommittee's letter of February 1, 1973, concerning the Agriculture Department's termination of the Water Bank Act program, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Brunthaver wrote on February 13 that the Agriculture Department had prepared a NEPA impact statement on this program in May 1972, and that "the environmental benefits set forth" in that statement "were given due consideration in the decision" to terminate the program. He then said: "It was believed, however, that countervailing Government interests outweighed the environmental benefits" of this program.

(a) What were the "countervailing" Government interests that outweighed the environmental benefits of this program and in what way did they outweigh those benefits?

24. The A. D. Little draft report noted that there is often inadequate maintenance of channels which results in reducing their capacity to pass floodwaters, and that many streams have been "ditched two and three times."

(a) To what extent is such inadequate maintenance due to (i) inadequate Federal requirements for maintenance, (ii) inadequate Federal enforcement of such requirements, and (iii) inadequate financing by sponsoring local agencies.

(b) Furnish to the subcommittee the best available estimates of: (i) The number of miles of channels that have required additional channel work, and (ii) the cost of such additional work.

25. At the subcommittee's previous stream channelization hearings, SCS representatives testified that SCS has not made or contracted for specific studies to determine the actual effects of channelization on the water table or on stream basin hydrology, but has nevertheless determined that channelization does not significantly increase downstream flood peaks.

(a) What studies, if any, has SCS made since then on these matters?

26. (a) What are the hydrologic characteristics and effects of stream channels?

(b) How and to what extent does sedimentation establish or alter the effects of stream channels?

(c) How and to what extent do vegetation and physical developments modify the effects of stream channels?

(d) To what extent does vegetation on the banks of a stream influence sediment load and behavior patterns of a stream whether channelized or not?

(e) How and to what extent does channelization of a stream modify stream velocity and what are the results of such modification?

27. (a) What evidence exists that channelization of a stream increases sediment runoff?

(b) How and to what extent does increased sediment runoff adversely affect downstream water quality?

28. In 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency said:

"*** we wish to point out that no monitoring system that would show compliance or non-compliance with our recommendations, has been established.

"An initial step in this direction might be an interagency agreement which would provide for EPA advice and consultation on watershed projects, assure acceptance of water quality recommendations and establish a continuing monitoring program to assure that water quality goals are being met."

In August 1971, the SCS commented on EPA's suggestion as follows: "Representatives of EPA have not contacted the Soil Conservation Service with respect to developing an interagency agreement which would provide for EPA advice and consultation on watershed projects, assure acceptance of water quality recommendations, and establish a continuing monitoring program to assure that water quality goals are being met.

"We are not aware of any instances in any of our watershed projects or other program activities in which there has been a need for such an agreement. Very close and congenial relationships exist between the field offices of SCS and EPA and also at the national level. Environmental Protection Agency field offices are being contacted with respect to water quality problems in watershed projects and recommendations of that agency are given very careful consideration in plan formulation. If conditions should develop which make an agreement with EPA desirable, this agency will welcome the opportunity to cooperate with EPA in this manner."

(a) To what extent are EPA's water quality recommendations accepted and included in the channelization projects sponsored by SCS, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and TVA?

(b) What procedures are followed by each of the agencies to insure that project modifications (including post-authorization changes) which affect or relate to the channelization or the effects thereof, are reported to B.S.F. & W., and that recommendations concerning fish and wildlife are reconsidered by both B.S.F. & W. and the agency?

(c) Give examples of significant modifications of which the agency did not notify B.S.F. & W., or notified B.S.F.& W. too late for B.S.F. & W. to make an effective input into the decision to proceed with the modification.

MANNER IN WHICH ALL WITNESSES SHOULD PREPARE THEIR WRITTEN AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The subcommittee desires to obtain maximum information, concisely presented, regarding the many issues and matters summarized above. The subcommittee recognizes that the presentation of adequate responses and data may, in some instances, require fairly extensive discussion. Because the time allotted for the hearings is limited, and in view of the number of witnesses and the subcommittee's desire to facilitate maximum discussion with all witnesses, the subcommittee requests that each witness: (a) prepare a full and adequate state