Page images
PDF
EPUB

water quality from the pollutants carried by fine sediments. The pollutants such as pesticides, excess nutrients, pathogens, and radioactive material associated with sediment and more harmful to the environment than sediment itself are derived essentially from upland erosion being adsorbed by clay minerals, organic material, and some silt. Sand and much silt is composed of quartz which lacks the electron charges on its edges which attract and hold the pollutants just cited. The sediment eroded from stream banks rarely have these contaminants attached as the source of them is surface (sheet) erosion from farmland.

Downstream water quality affected by channel modification, if or when adverse effects occur, would consist essentially of the damage that coarse sediment in water causes. The extent of the adverse effects generally would be small and for a short period, if at all.

28. (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 postauthorization changes) which affect or relate to the channelization or the effects thereof, are reported to BSF & W, and that recommendations concerning fish and wildlife are reconsidered by both BSF & W and the agency?

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

Response

(a) EPA's water quality recommendations on watershed projects may be either of two types, those that relate to project responsibilities concerning project induced effects or impacts, and those that represent additional opportunities that might be met through the watershed program.

We give careful consideration to EPA's comments in the first category, making further studies as may be necessary to satisfy ourselves as to the extent of the project responsibility. To the extent that the project induced adverse effects may be minimized by added provisions of the project plan, the sponsoring organization agrees to the added provisions, and any remaining adverse effects are acceptable in view of countervailing benefits, we proceed with the project. Recommendations representing additional opportunities are supported in an effort to make the project serve as many water management needs of the community as possible.

(b) The Watershed Protection Handbook (paragraph 113.102) lists "major Federal actions" which require preparation of an environmental statement. Two of these actions refer to watershed or subwatershed work plan revisions or supplements involving (1) significant change in purpose of scope, and (2) changes having a significant impact on the environment. If an environmental statement is to be prepared, paragraph 113.104 of the WPH requires that other agencies (which includes BSF & W) be requested to provide assistance at an early stage of plan development and their inputs be incorporated into an early draft of the environmental statement.

Watersheds memorandum 121 (Sept. 1, 1972) covers procedures for projects approved prior to January 1, 1970. It requires that Federal and State fish and game agencies be consulted in developing schedules for preparing needed supple ments to permit their timely participation and maximum contribution. (c) We are not aware of any such examples in our watershed program.

EXHIBITS

[Subcommittee note.-The exhibits referred to below are printed in the appendixes of these hearings.]

1. Exhibit 1--"The planning Process."

2. Examples of Watershed Advisories which were issued to call attention to general deficiencies in environmental statements:

Exhibit 2a.-Advisory WS-7 (Feb. 12, 1973)

Exhibit 2b.-Advisory WS-26 (Oct. 12, 1972)

3. Examples of watershed projects in which the Washington office review has revealed opportunities for reducing adverse effects, and the State conservationist has been requested to consider the project:

Exhibit 3a.-Cypress Creek watershed, Alabama and Tennessee.
Exhibit 3b.-Diamond-Traphole Brook watershed, Massachusetts.

4. Exhibit 4-May 30, 1972, letter of Mr. Travis S. Roberts, Regional Director of BSF&W, addressed to Hon. William L. Guy, Governor of North Dakota, in which he informed him that BSF&W had achieved its share of the wetlands acquisition goal.

5. Correspondence between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture regarding the Cameron Creole watershed project :

Exhibit 5a.-Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS, letter of January 20, 1972,
to Hon. W. T. Pecora, Under Secretary, Department of the Interior.
Exhibit 5b.-Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS, letter of March 7, 1972, to
Hon. W. T. Pecora, Under Secretary, Department of the Interior.

Exhibit 5c.-Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, letter of April 6, 1972. to Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS.

Exhibit 5d.-Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS, letter of April 11, 1972, to Mr. Philip M. Roedel, Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce.

Exhibit 5e.-Philip M. Roedel. Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, letter of May 24, 1972, to Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS.

Exhibit 5f.-Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS, letter of May 31, 1972, to
Hon. W. T. Pecora, Under Secretary, Department of the Interior.
Exhibit 5g.-Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, letter of June
13, 1972, to Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS.

Mr. REUSS. Our first witness today is Chairman Russell Train of the Council on Environmental Quality. Mr. Train, we are honored to have you here and appreciate your interest in our work. You have prepared a comprehensive statement which under the rules we will permit in full in the record, and would you now proceed.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you to discuss the subject of stream channel modification. As your committee has held extensive hearings on this subject in the past, I need not remind you that stream channelization is a controversial and complex problem. Yet there are few environmental problems that are not without their complexities-and most are likewise controversial. Controversy over stream channelization is accented by the fact that the Federal Government, either directly through its own construction activities or indirectly through financial and technical assistance, engages in the practice of straightening, widening and deepening streams for purposes of navigation, flood control, and drainage.

The issues of stream channelization are no less complex than the stream ecosystem which is impacted by this practice. Consisting of a wide spectrum of living organisms, both plant and animal, which form the delicate balance and dictate the biological productivity of its waters, America's natural flowing streams and rivers are a critical national asset, the alteration of which can often lead to unforeseen environmental damage. Because of our propensity to settle in the flood plain, we have often blamed the river for flooding our homes and land, rather than modifying our development habits that have led us to building and developing on the hazardous fringes of rivers and streams. This is not to say that all waterways must be left alone, for there is too much existing development currently threatened by potential floods, and in the interests of public safety we must often make provisions to protect the public from the natural course of floods. What we must recognize, however, is that our natural flowing

streams and rivers are a dwindling resource, that they provide an important, although diminishing, home for abundant species of fish and wildlife, and the micro-organisms and plants in and around the waterway which sustains these species. And, finally, America's rivers and streams are often the most beautiful aspects of our landscape. We should take care that our natural areas of beauty are maintained for the enjoyment of future as well as present generations.

I would remind the committee that the central thrust of the administration's national land use policy bill, which is presently before Congress, is to insure, among other things, the protection of critical environmental areas, such as flood plains of streams and rivers, and these are specified, Mr. Chairman, in the bill as examples of critical environmental areas.

While a variety of measures may be used to affect development activities on flood plains, strengthened State land use controls offer the greatest potential to avoid the abuse occasioned by our past habits of flood plain development. I am hopeful that the Congress will act on this important legislation this session.

In order to make an initial step in better understanding the issues surrounding the channelization controversy, the Council in mid-1971 initiated a contractual study with Arthur D. Little, Inc., and the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences to evaluate the flood control and drainage aspects of Federal and federally assisted stream channelization. We asked our contractors to evaluate some 42 proposed and completed projects in the field, to evaluate other data and literature on the subject, and to provide us a written report assessing the various physical and environmental impacts from stream channelization, an analysis of the economics and cost-sharing arrangements under which these projects are funded, and an assessment of the alternatives to stream channelization. We have felt that such a study is a necessary first step in an effort to provide an analysis of the stream channel modification program and to give some indication where further research may be necessary. In order to insure that the study was properly structured to cover the major issues, and to assure continuous professional critique of the study in progress, we set up a small but highly competent science advisory panel, consisting of the following eminent professionals in this field:

Dr. Gilbert White, director, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado;

Dr. Gordon Wolman, Department of Geography, Johns Hopkins University;

Dr. Luna Leopold, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California;

Dr. Thomas Maddock, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior;

Dr. F. Raymond Fosberg, Special Adviser for Tropical Biology, Smithsonian Institution: and

Dr. Ruth Patrick, Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. The advisory group has been most useful in assisting us on the study and in providing comments to us on the initial draft of the report which was submitted a year ago, on March 31, 1972.

The final report will be completed by the end of this month. However, because we will receive only a limited number of copies from the contractor, we expect that wide distribution of the report cannot be

accomplished until May or June of this year, when it can be reproduced by the Government Printing Office.

In your letter of invitation to testify, you have asked us a number of questions relating to the issue of stream channelization. It is clear to us that some of these questions relate directly to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, while others are more appropriately the purview of the implementing agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. However, in line with the discussions our respective staffs have had, I have attached my answers to those questions which have a direct bearing on the responsibilities of the Council. And that attachment has been made available to the committee and here in this room.

We are planning a significant revision of the Council's guidelines for implementing NEPA and hope to have a full text of the proposed guidelines in the Federal Register in the near future. While I believe these revised guidelines will answer many of the NEPA questions raised in your letter and attachments, I have addressed the specific questions in the attachments to this statement.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony regarding stream channel modification. I will welcome any questions you might wish to ask at this point. Thank you again for the opportunity to present my testimony.

And I again invite your attention to the detailed responses to the specific questions which you have addressed.

[NOTE.-Mr. Train's answers to the questions submitted by the subcommittee are printed at pp. 2806-2807.]

Mr. REUSS Thank you, Chairman Train, and thank you particularly for the specific answers to our questions that are appended to your statement, which we find entirely responsive and most helpful.

I am particularly interested in the findings on page 3 of your supplementary answers that "many Soil Conservation Service and Bureau of Reclamation final environmental impact statements fail to adequately consider comments related to adverse impacts and fail sometimes to balance these against project benefits"; and that "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," and your statement on page 4 that "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." You mentioned in your oral statement that the Arthur D. Little study will be ready, although with a limited number of copies, within 10 days-by the end of March.

Mr. TRAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. REUSS. Could the subcommittee have a copy of it?

Mr. TRAIN. It will certainly be made available to you. I am not sure what the mechanical problem will be.

Mr. REUSS. Made available to us is good enough.

Mr. TRAIN. To the extent it is available to us, I assure you, it will be made available to you.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you very much.

[NOTE.-By letter of April 5, 1973, Mr. Train transmitted to the subcommittee a copy of the 3-volume "Report on Channel Modifications," March 31, 1973, prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc., under

contract with CEQ. The report is in the subcommittee files. (See app. 37.)

Mr. REUSS. On the subject of the environmental impact statements by the SCS and the Corps of Engineers, do you not think that those statements should identify all of the project beneficiaries, and show the benefited acreage and the extent of the overall benefit they will receive from the project? This business of covering up Weyerhaeuser and the L. & N. Railroad seems to me a particularly petty form of flim-flamming to which the public ought no longer be subjected.

Mr. TRAIN. Well, I certainly believe that the public and the Congress are entitled to know publicly who the beneficiaries are. Certainly, the major beneficiaries and the extent of the benefits. Now, whether this is properly a part of an environmental impact statement, I am not entirely positive.

Mr. REUSS. It is pretty hard to get it in any other way unless the public is able to finance the search of records, isn't it? The purpose of the environmental impact statement, as we wrote it into the NEPA law, was to furnish a piece of paper on which the public could read and comment and grasp what was going on. In that context, would you not agree that the impact statement should contain such data? Mr. TRAIN. I do not want to say it is not the proper vehicle. I am not positive whether this is what you would call an environmental element in the projects. Now, I see no reason why data of this sort should not be made available to the public; and I cannot understand why it should be considered privileged in any way, to the extent that it does not involve protected information, such as personal, individual, or corporate income tax returns and things of that sort. But, I do not think that is involved here. I see no privilege against such disclosure and, as I said, I think the public and the Congress are entitled to have that information. I am just a little uncertain as to whether these are, in fact, the environmental impacts and alternative courses of action which Congress specified ought to be laid out in the section 102(2) (C) environmental impact statement.

Mr. REUSS. There is certainly no harm in having the data in there, though, is there?

Mr. TRAIN. I see no harm, but it would have to be an enforceable requirement and so, in the final analysis, it would depend upon whether the courts would find that a statement which did not include such information was inadequate for that reason. I am a little uncertain myself as to how a court would rule on that.

Mr. REUSS. Well, quite apart from whether there is an absolute. legal requirement, it would be a nice idea, would it not, if one is preparing an environmental impact statement for the public, not to conceal the fact that Weyerhaeuser, L. & N., or any other outfit is going to be the major beneficiary of the project?

Mr. TRAIN. I think there is no question that the NEPA process is almost primarily a full disclosure process. This is the major effect, I think-the major operative effect of the entire environmental impact process. And when in doubt, I would always say full disclosure is the appropriate course.

Mr. REUSS. On another subject, you are familiar, are you not, with the holding of the Federal court in the Chicod Creek decision in North Carolina, that the Refuse Act of 1899 applied to Public Law 566,

« PreviousContinue »