Page images
PDF
EPUB

ment setting forth his views and comments, with necessary supporting materials, on the issues, and (b) if such statement exceeds seven letter-size, double-spaced typed pages, submit it for inclusion in full in the record and orally present a summary statement of seven pages or less.

In accordance with the rules of the House Government Operations Committee (copy attached), and to assist the subcommittee members in their advance preparation for the hearing, each witness should furnish to the subcommittee 20 copies of his statement, and of his summary, by Friday, March 16, 1973.

In addition, it is suggested that at least 40 copies be brought to the hearing room for use at the hearing (by the reporter, subcommittee, press, and so forth). The subcommittee welcomes and appreciates the views and data furnished to it on the issues summarized above.

PART B

AGENCY REPLIES

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Question 1

The Corps of Engineers holds at least three public meetings during the preauthorization planning period and conducts workshops and advisory committee meetings both pre- and post-authorization in an effort to assure public participation. The Soil Conservation Service also has local public meetings early in the planning process. The Bureau of Reclamation now conducts public hearings for a project action based on the draft environmental impact statement, but generally does not conduct public meetings during the project planning phases. Public participation and broad community involvement in the planning of water projects varies from project to project and agency to agency. A continuing effort by all agencies to improve the effectiveness of public participation throughout the project planning process is needed. Questions 2, 3, 7, and 15

The implementing agencies have improved their compliance with the requirements of NEPA, both in terms of procedural and substantive handling of impact assessment. However, the situation is far from perfect, as there are many conflicting viewpoints over the potential impacts associated with a proposed action. In some cases, the environmental impacts addressed in the impact statement are not all-inclusive and may be somewhat deficient.

In a more specific sense, the three major implementing agencies (corps, SCS, BuRec) have all issued new NEPA procedures since your last hearings. These new procedures are vital first steps in providing a solid foundation on which to fully assess impacts and evaluate alternatives to the proposed action. I call attention to the Corps of Engineers' NEPA procedures (ER 1105-2-507, Feb. 16, 1973) as being particularly responsive to NEPA, CEQ guidelines, and the recent court decisions.

These agencies have all conducted a number of training sessions, workshops, and seminars in an effort to educate staff personnel regarding assessment of environmental impacts.

In terms of substantive assessment of impacts, there is much variation from project-to-project and agency-to-agency. Much of the variation is the direct result of the availability of environmental data. In some instances there are many data sources, in others very few. The corps has undertaken a number of research projects regarding environmental impacts of its programs, while BuRec has done so to a less extent, and SCS generally does not undertake such research.

The agencies receive many comments on the draft impact statements, many of which point to significant environmental impacts. While the corps final EIS usually acknowledges and discusses these impacts, many of SCS and BuRec final environmental impact statements fail to adequately consider comments related to adverse impacts and fail sometimes to balance these against project benefits.

NEPA is an evolving process and we will continue to work with the implementing agencies to arrive at better and more comprehensive environmental impact statements. We are insisting that the impact statements fully reflect the nature and severity of the adverse environmental impacts and fully discuss and evaluate the alternatives to the proposed action.

Question 8

In Watershed Advisory 12 and Watersheld Memorandum 121, SCS determined that impact statements would be prepared on a case-by-case basis for those projects in category 1 in Watershed Memorandum 108 in which full agreement had been reached among the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, SCS, and the State fish and game agencies that the environmental impacts will be minimal. The SCS determined that all projects in categories 2 and 3 require impact statements. Assuming that SCS files adequate impact statements on all projects which have a significant environmental impact, the above procedures would appear to comply with the intent of NEPA.

Question 9

With respect to the Cache River and Obion and Forked Deer River projects, the Corps of Engineers must comply with the requirements of NEPA prior to initiation of work on these projects. On all projects on which mitigation measures are contemplated, they should be incorporated as an integral part of initial project planning and authorized as an integral part of the overall project. Question 10

In general, few channelization environmental impact statements reflect the extent to which the project may directly or indirectly have the effect of bringing new land into agricultural production. It is not clear whether the corps follows a policy similar to that of SCS (SCS Watershed Memorandum 84) which requires that channelization should not be implemented where the primary purpose is to bring new land into agricultural production. Question 13

As to what action the administration may or may not take to implement and enforce the Refuse Act (section 13) provisions on nonpoint source discharges, I call your attention to three aspects of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act amendments. First, the definition of a point source is quite broad, and EPA is currently preparing regulations which will define discrete agricultural sources of pollution as point sources subject to permit. Second, section 208 provides for the development of area wide waste treatment management including the identification and control of agriculturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution, mine-related sources of pollution, and construction related sources of pollution. Third, the President has proposed an amendment to the act which would add supplementary requirements for the control of construction related sources of pollution.

It is too early to be able to define precisely how these alternatives and the Refuse Act authority will be combined, but I can assure you that the administration intends to make the best use of all of these authorities in its efforts to control water pollution.

Question 16

This country should not ignore the environmental effects of channelization, and it was for this reason that the CEQ initiated its stream channelization modification study.

Question 17

The stream channel modification report to which we have earlier alluded is to assess the various alternatives to stream channel modification. Accordingly we would defer on this question until we have had an opportunity to review the analysis in this report.

The President's national land use policy bill would strengthen broader State land use controls over such critical environmental areas as wetlands and floodplains. Additionally, the President proposes an environmental protection tax act which would remove current tax incentives attributable to development, including dredging, draining, and filling in coastal wetlands. These approaches would represent two types of alternatives to physical channel modification.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Question 1. The extent to which Reclamation provides opportunities for effective public participation at all stages of development of projects involving channelization and the adequacy of the procedure utilized to insure that such participation is, in fact, effective.

Answer. As projects are being conceived and formulated, it is necessary to get public input. Public meetings are held to discuss the general aspects of project needs and how they can be met. Notice of these meetings are frequently placed in local newspapers, and the general public is welcome to participate.

Public hearings are held to discuss draft environmental impact statements. Written comments are requested on draft environmental impact statements. In addition, pursuant to a meeting on February 9, 1971, in Boulder City, Nev., among representatives from Arizona, California, and Reclamation, a Federal-State advisory committee was organized. The committee, the "Lower Colorado River Management Program Coordinating Committee," is chaired by Reclamation and includes representatives from the States of Arizona and California; Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Indian Affairs (and/or tribal representatives), and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada.

Question 2. The action taken by Reclamation since the subcommittee's June 1971 hearings to provide a better assessment of the adverse effects of channelization and to eliminate or minimize those effects and the adequacy of such actions.

Answer. A sincere effort has been made to use the environmental impact statement as a means of better assessing the public's needs and desires. Attempts are made to expand the coverage of alternative measures and to assess their environmental impacts. Vegetative management studies which will be useful in designing better alternative proposals have been initiated. Studies of blackwater dredging are being conducted to assess the impact of our dredging programs. Key personnel have received training and on-the-job experience in the development and assessment of the environmental impacts of proposed and completed programs.

Reclamation has a major responsibility along the lower Colorado River with an ongoing program for control, operation, improvement, and maintenance of the river. The Lower Colorado River Management Program Coordinating Committee was formed for more effective coordination of studies of specific problem areas along the lower Colorado River.

Question 3. Recommendations on what further actions Reclamation could or should not take to improve their assessment of these effects and to eliminate or minimize them.

Answer. Extensive hydrological, engineering, geological, economic, and social data are generally available as the basis for project studies. Where these data are not available, but needed, necessary funds and efforts are expended to obtain them. Research that is being conducted on specific problems, such as vegetative management and development of backwater areas which address the basic information needed to make broad and comprehensive environmental appraisals, should be continued.

Question 4. Whether there has been a significant reduction of channelization by Reclamation since the subcommittee's 1971 hearings.

Answer. A slowdown of the ongoing program for the lower Colorado River has occurred, partly because of the time required for Reclamation to have a new look at the program through the Lower Colorado River Management Program Coordinating Committee and the time required for preparation of environmental impact statements.

Reclamation is presently examining alternatives to channelization of the James River in South Dakota. This work was included in the initial stage development plan for the Oahe unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program.

Question 5. The extent to which water quality problems, such as eutrophication, increases in sedimentation, or pesticide accumulations occur or are aggravated by channelization, and the adequacy of actions taken by Reclamation to cope with these problems.

Answer. Water quality problems, such as eutrophication, sedimentation, and pesticide accumulations are effected in two general areas by channelizationin the stream channelized and downstream receiving waters. In general, natural streams are more efficient biological decomposers and water purifiers than lakes or standing waters.

Channelization projects planned and executed by Reclamation are designed to ameliorate rather than aggravate these problems. The channel width, depth, and slope gradient are designed to reduce or eliminate bank erosion, scour, and the development of sandbars. Sandbars initially cause a reduction in the carrying capacity of the channel, and later cause the velocity of the water to increase, usually resulting in scour or bank erosion. The use of rock groins, jetties (rock or jacks) controls the flow pattern and reduces bank erosion.

The instability of the lower Colorado River channel and riverbanks is not caused by channelization, but by the large amount of sediment in the stream and sediment disposition. This is common in all delta areas. Reclamation's operation and maintenance program on the lower Colorado River has the potential to improve the water quality by reducing the sediment load in the stream.

Channelization work that is well planned and executed will reduce flooding which causes significant erosion and destroys wildlife habitat.

Question 6. Whether adequate provisions are made by Reclamation for solid waste collection and disposal generated by the project.

Answer. Where possible, the material removed during the straightening or deepening of the river or stream is used to construct the levees, which provide flood protection.

Selective placement of the dredged material on the highlands is utilized in an attempt to save a representative portion of each type of habitat. Low dikes are used to control the spread of the material.

In most instances, prior to the initiation of dredging, a representative of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife accompanies a Reclamation representative to select the sites for placing dredging spoil.

Question 7. The extent to which each of the agencies listed above: (a). Is complying with the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the CEQ guidelines in preparing environmental impact statements for projects which include channelization.

Answer. We define the procedural requirements of NEPA to be the spirit and intent of the law rather than the mechanism needed to comply.

It appears that the agencies in question usually go through the motions required in preparing environmental impact statements. The contents of these statements often leaves much to be desired. It is our opinion that many do not provide the decisionmaker with sufficient information on which to appraise the environmental consequences. They usually place emphasis on the action being recommended and play down or skim over possible alternatives and their environmental impacts. Our views on the adequacy of statements are shared by the courts. The decisions of the Cache River and Obion-Forked Deer projects of the Corps of Engineers and the Chicod Creek project of the Soil Conservation Service generally support our views.

Question 7(b). Has taken steps to upgrade the quality of these impact statements.

Answer. The quality of the statements has generally improved over the last 2 years with the construction agencies developing some expertise and capability. There remains much room for improvement. This Department is providing additional consultative services at field level and in its formal comments on drafts to aid in the preparation of good statements.

On November 6, 1972, Reclamation issued revised instructions for all offices to follow in preparing environmental statements. These instructions call for more complete information than was previously supplied. Also internal reviews of environmental statements are more critical and rewrites are required in cases where the reports are not considered adequate. Regional and field office personnel are made more aware of the items to be considered in statements through meetings to review and update statements.

Question 7(c). Is giving adequate consideration to, and adopting the views of, reviewing agencies on draft statements.

Answer. It has been the practice of the agencies to either modify the statement or to append comments of other agencies rather than modify the plans or action. As we view it, the exercise in preparing environmental statements is not simply to acknowledge environmental damages caused by an action but to set the stage for remedial measures aimed at correcting damages.

We offer, as example, our comments on the Soil Conservation Service project for Chicod Creek, N.C., which point the way to plan modifications and have not thus far been effective.

Preliminary plans for additional major stream channelization of the lower Colorado River have been halted pending completion of a joint review of such plans by all State and Federal agencies concerned. A proposal to channelize portions of the James River as part of the Oahe unit, James Division, of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program is being reviewed for possible alternatives (possibly limited only to construction of flood levees) as a result of suggestions of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife which objected to major channelization plans. Reviews of plans on the Bonneville unit, Central Utah project, by fishery interests resulted in requests for channel work to improve fishery conditions. These suggestions are now being studied.

Question 7(d). Lists items under the heading “environmental impacts” which are in reality economic justifications for the project (e.g., the SCS revised Aug. 1972 Starkweather watershed project environmental impact statement).

Answer. There is a tendency for all construction agencies to bias statements in favor of the action proposed. Project justifications abound in statements. We relate that to the fact that impact statements often are not prepared until after the decision on a project is reached. In many cases the project is already authorized and/or under construction and the statement becomes a justification for an existing plan rather than an objective appraisal of environmental consequences.

Question 7(e). Fully considers and discusses flood plain management as an alternative to the proposed flood control project.

Answer. The weakest part of an EIS is generally its "alternative" section. We attribute that to the project "mission orientation" of agencies. The “flood plain management" alternative represents a lack of project in the structural sense and is seldom given adequate consideration. This type of alternative while beneficial from an environmental point of view appears to be a bitter pill for many construction agencies to swallow.

It is our assessment that construction agencies espouse the "flood plain management" philosophy only when a valid B/C ratio cannot be adopted or when local sponsors fail to react affirmatively. There is one exception which deserves mention. The Corps of Engineers' recommended plan for flood control on the Charles River, Mass., provides for natural valley storage in swamps, marshes, and wetlands. It provides for the Federal acquisition of these wetlands in lieu of the typical structural measures usually recommended.

It is our hope that the honest application of NEPA will result in projects which preserve natural values rather than destroy them.

Mr. JESSE HICKS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,
Atlanta, Ga., September 10, 1971.

State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service,
Raleigh, N.C.

DEAR MR. HICKS: In conjunction with your office's Watershed Memorandum 108 review, the Fish and Wildlife Service has made a review of the Chicod Creek Watershed project, Beaufort and Pitt Counties, N.C., with the cooperation of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and we wish to provide the following comments.

As it now stands, the approved work plan calls for 60.4 miles of stream channelization. Fish and wildlife mitigation measures include plans for a 12-acre lake with public access and two wetland preservation areas, totaling 61 acres. At a meeting held in your office May 28, 1971, your staff presented the following additional measures in draft form:

(1) Construction from one side with trees planted: On lateral 11 from outlet to SSR-1772 (2.5 miles), construction will be performed from the right side, and only those trees on the left that are leaning (30 degrees or more) over the channel will be cut. Trees will be planted along the edge of the channel on the spoil side.

(2) Construction from both sides with trees planted: On the main ditch from outlet to SSR-1565 (2.5 miles), construction will take place from both sides and trees will be planted within the channel at approximately 6 inches above planned water elevation and at approximately 10-foot spacings.

(3) Flashboard risers: On Chicod main ditch from SSR-1782 to outlet; on lateral 11 from SSR-1756 to outlet; and on east side of lateral 9 from lateral 9 A to outlet. Flashboard risers will be installed on all pipe inlets (approximately 30 installations). Approximate area flooded-150 acres.

(4) Channel pools: On Chicod main ditch from SSR-1565 to outlet (2.5 miles) and on lateral 11 from SSR-1772 to outlet (2.5 miles). Rock fill structures projecting 1 foot above design grade will be placed at regular intervals. The channel

« PreviousContinue »