Navigable Waters Handbook Participation in Judicial and Other Hearings - Belligerency is neither called for nor helpful. 10C Cont. Evasive, counter-punching, or "cute" answers can only alienate the hearing officer or judge; such answers will not help your position. APPENDIX 30-SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE'S STARKWEATHER, N. DAK., WATERSHED PROJECT1 PART "A": CORRESPONDENCE RE SCS WORK PLAN AND AGREEMENT ON WETLANDS ACQUISITION File: RB. U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM August 7, 1969. Memorandum to: Director, Washington, D.C. (RB). I met with Governor Guy yesterday for about an hour and a half. The purpose of my visit was to attempt to persuade the Governor to approve 37 fee purchase proposals obtained during the months of April, May, and June and prior to his first indication of a moratorium on wetland purchases in North Dakota, and what further means might be explored to reach necessary compromises with respect to the Starkweather project. Concerning the first matter, the Governor said that he might approve the 37 purchase options and might make a decision today. He said that the "Minot Daily News" had called him on August 5 and asked whether it was true that he had declared a moratorium on Federal wetland purchases in North Dakota. He advised the reporter that he was meeting on the 6th with me, and he might have an announcement to make on the question today. In introducing the Starkweather matter, I told the Governor that the Bureau's report on Starkweather had been sent to the Soil Conservaion Service 2 or 3 days ago. I pointed out that in drafting the report we had tried to carefully consider his views as expressed in his letter of June 3, 1969, to State Conservationist Evans. I noted that the report concluded that, in the opinion of the Bureau, provisions should be made for the preservation of 10,000 acres of wetlands in the watersheds. I told the Governor that I realized that the Bureau's report did not reflect the Governor's wishes. At the same time. I pointed out to him that by law the Bureau must report, as it sees it, on the impact such watershed projects would have on fish and wildlife resources, and at the same time suggest what to us appear to be reasonable means of offsetting the damages to wildlife resources that might result from such a project. I told the Governor of our immediate efforts following his June 7 meeting in Bismark to find the solution to the Starkweather problem. I pointed out that I had immediately arranged a meeting with Dean Schulz of the Extension Service, Water Commission Member Russ Dushinske, Commissioner Stuart, and State Conservationist Evans and that out of that meeting we had agreed to pursue two possibilities: (1) press for completion of the water bank proposal, and (2) reexamine the basis for the Bureau's easement payment to determine whether the amount being offered to landowners to preserve their wetlands was adequate and fair. I told the Governor we are diligently pursuing both matters. I expressed my personal opinion to Governor Guy that the water management district-and for practical purposes Gordon Berg is the water management district-really wants to "go it alone." That is, he doesn't really want to see a Federal watershed project in the Starkweather Basin, otherwise he would have attempted to temper his demands and his actions to try and bring about a more comprehensive and politically practical project proposal. I recounted several of Mr. Berg's actions, expressions at public meetings and on local radio designed to dissuade landowners from entering into easement agreements with the Bureau, and his efforts to have Bureau personnel either removed from their positions or transferred where these individuals disagreed with his conservation theories. 1 See also SCS discussion on the Starkweather project, included in its reply to the subcommittee's staff memorandum, printed at pp. 2860–2865. I expressed the opinion that while Mr. Berg may now have decided that wetland preservation should be one feature of the Watershed project, his expressions and his actions of 2 and 3 years ago had become so firmly fixed in the minds of the local landowners that they were in no frame of mind to preserve wetlands under either a Bureau or water management district easement. We might, I reasoned, get the landowners to reopen their minds to the subject of saving wetlands if we could offer a proposal that hadn't heretofore been brought up. At this point I brought up the possibilities expressed in items 1(a) and 1(b) of the attachment. I did not bring up item (c) because at this point the Governor expressed the suggestion that the possibilities outlined in 1(a) and 1(b) be discussed with State Conservationist Evans and the water management district. This I agreed to do. Through all this, the Governor listened very attentively. He thought that I credited Mr. Berg with more influence in the water management district than he actually had. He reiterated many of the views expressed in his June 3 letter to Mr. Evans. He said that he had lived for 8 years with the problems in the Starkweather watershed. He felt that it was wrong for the Bureau to establish standard criteria for the preservation of wetlands in small watershed projects. Rather, he thought each watershed should be considered on its own merits so that the local economic problems could be taken into account. He felt that unless the Bureau changed its stand on the Starkweather watershed project proposal that we would see the beginning of the end of the Bureau's wetlands preservation programs in the State. I did not interpret his remarks as a personal threat; rather, I think that he sincerely believes that an anti-Bureau attitude will develop because of the Starkweather issue. I observed that the Bureau had over the years worked on a great many water resources projects in North Dakota with many water management districts and other governmental agencies, and so far as I have been able to recall we have been able to develop good working relationships and arrive at satisfactory solutions to the agriculture-wildlife problems in all of them, the most recent example being the Fairdale Drain project. The crux of the problem in the Starkweather watershed, I opined, was the local water management district leadership. The Governor repeated his displeasure with the Bureau's position on the Starkweather proposal. Because of our insistence on preserving the habitat which produces perhaps 12,000 ducks, the Bureau is apt to defeat a project which promises to solve the long-standing economic problems of the landowners in the Starkweather Basin. If we are to preserve wetlands, the Bureau must become competitive in the market for wetlands and particularly in watershed project areas. We must give the farmers a choice of either draining to make his land more productive or we must offer him a payment that is the equivalent of the agricultural payments foregone by the draining. We must let the landowner make that decision and once that decision is made, the Bureau should not attempt to defeat the small watershed proposals developed by local interests. At this point, he mentioned his interest in the broad subject of natural resources and the environment and observed that at his request he is now chairman of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee established by the National Governors' Conference. The Governor suggested that where we run into situations such as we find in the Starkweather Watershed that we should compensate for such wildlife losses by more intensive developments elsewhere. I pointed out to the Governor that we had considered such an approach but the difficulties seemed almost insurmountable. At this point I brought up item 2 of the attachment and observed that the Bureau had been approached by several landowners within the Lake Alice and by the major landowner within the Rush Lake area about the possibility of our purchasing their lands. These are two areas on which the Bureau would like to establish a national wildlife refuge, I told the Governor, but to do this the Bureau would need to hold public hearings, would need to obtain the consent of the Governor and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission and, finally, it must see funds in sight for the acquisition of the properties. Nevertheless, I told the Governor that if he would like to explore this possibility with us, I would be glad to give him a confidential letter outlining the total area that the Bureau would need to acquire at Lake Alice and Rush Lake, the total number of landowners within these areas, and the number of landowners who had indicated an interest in selling their lands to the Bureau, along with the acreage of lands owned by these individuals within the proposed refuge boundary. The Governor asked that I do this. At this point, the Governor repeated his view that the Bureau had no longrange and specific goal for the acreages of wetlands that it wanted to obtain in North Dakota and the numbers of waterfowl that it wanted to produce in the State. I reminded him that some 6 years ago at a public meeting in Rugby I had detailed for him and the audience the total acreage, broken down by counties, that the Bureau desired to protect by easement and by fee purchase. At the same meeting I had also detailed specific areas within the State where the Bureau hoped eventually to establish additional national wildlife refuges. I advised the Governor that if he wished us to be more specific with respect to these acreage goals and the numbers of waterfowl to be produced, we would be glad to work with Commissioner Stuart in developing such information. In concluding the discussion, all of which was conducted on a friendly and frank plane, I mentioned to the Governor that we had always listened carefully to his suggestions and had done our best to fulfill his wishes. I reminded him of the views that he had expressed at a meeting' of the State water commission to which I was invited to specifically discuss the Bureau's view with respect to the Starkweather watershed. At that time, I reminded the Governor, his concluding statements to me and other members of the State water commission were that the Bureau's goals to protect the temporary type 1 wetlands were impractical because of the nuisance that they constituted to the landowners in their farming operations, and that the Bureau's goal of protecting 85 percent of the type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands was too high, and that he recommended that this goal be reduced to about 75 percent. I pointed out that the current Bureau report on the Starkweather project meets all of the criteria that he suggested to us at that meeting. What was the net result of the meeting? I really can't hazard a guess. Maybe we'll get some indication from a news account in the Minot Daily News. Following my meeting with Governor Guy, I visited with State Conservationist Evans. He is in almost as much a dilemma as we are. He has produced a report that he really doesn't like and makes a proposal that I think he really doesn't want to make, although he didn't say so in so many words. R. W. BURWELL. SUGGESTED PROPOSALS TO DISCUSS WITH GOVERNOR GUY 1. (a) The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife proposes to pay the Sweetwater-Dry Lake Water Management District, at the Bureau payment rate for 50-year easement, for any or all of 10,000 wetland easement acres, of which the water management board already has 1,700 acres. Payment would be approximately $30 per wetland acre. (b) After the 10,000 wetland acres are preserved, the water management district can obtain 50-year easements on an additional 345 acres of Bureaudesignated type III or IV wetlands. Easement on the 345 acres should be transferred to the Bureau at no cost. The Bureau would then accept this as compensation for the 345 wetland acres destroyed by channel construction. This would result in an approximate net saving of a half million dollars in project costs. (c) Establish, through the State Water Commission, a private drainage moratorium in the Starkweather and Edmore watersheds, effective through the construction phase of the two watershed projects. This would enhance the opportunity of the water management districts to get easements on the 10,000 wetland acres and would allow adequate time to determine the fate of the proposed water bank bill. This would prevent intensification of existing flood problems through drainage until project works are able to handle increased discharges. As a last resort, should Governor Guy reject proposal No. 1, we should consider the following: 2. Written approval by the Governor to purchase 11,458 acres as the Lake Alice Refuge, 10,600 acres as the Rush Lake Refuge, and 4,112 acres in Ramsey County and 3.805 acres in Cavalier County in scattered small wetland tracts. The above to be improved by management and development to approximately 1 Aug. 18, 1966. equal duck production of the wetland acres in the Starkweather and Elmore watersheds that should otherwise be protected by wetland easements. 3. Without adequate assurance of preservation of wetlands, the BSFW will not be able to endorse the Starkweather watershed project. OTHER NOTES Presently, there are about 110 easement landowners in the Starkweather watershed. Conversely, only 91 landowners will directly benefit from the project. Our solicitor, Mr. Boos, has advised that easement holders will have to pay watershed taxes for Starkweather project. However, when they pay their taxes they must file a protest; they will then be able to go to court to try to reclaim their taxation because they could not benefit from drainage by the proposed watershed project. Hon. CLIFFORD M. HARDIN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., October 6, 1969. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This is in reply to letter of August 6, 1969, from the Administrator of Soil Conservation Service, submitting for our review and comment to work plan for Starkweather watershed, North Dakota. In accordance with section 2 of Executive Order 10913 and provisions of section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended, this work plan has been reviewed by interested agencies of the Department of the Interior and found to be unsatisfactory in recognizing the detrimental effects on wildlife resources from the inevitable drainage of natural wetlands. Wildlife habitat of this watershed has significant national value and should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Wetland "potholes" of this northern prairie area are of special importance in the production of waterfowl and other migratory birds for the whole Nation. The Starkweather watershed project, as presently planned, does not contain adequate wildlife preservation and compensation measures, and will cause drastic and unwarranted losses of wildlife habitat, particularly for waterfowl and other migratory birds. In the course of accelerated preparation of a draft work plan, some agencies involved in project planning-including the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife did not have opportunity for review and comment. Also, unfortunately, accelerated work plan preparation did not permit preparation of the detailed report of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its transmittal to the Soil Conservation Service for consideration in time to meet the completion schedule of the draft plan. Extensive editorial comments on the fish and wildlife aspects of the draft work plan have been prepared during the Departmental-level review period. We recommend that the proposed Starkweather project work plan be returned to the North Dakota State conservationist for revision. This recommendation is made to give him the opportunity to consider and incorporate in the work plan the recommendations contained in the detailed report of the Fish and Wildlife Service. If consultations among concerned interests and review of a revised draft plan reveal nonacceptance of the above proposed changes, in substance, we must reluctantly record our opposition to the project and recommend that it not be authorized for construction. The project, as presenly planned, would have crucial impact on wildlife resources-an impact which would also have future ramifications in the small watershed program far beyond the Starkweather projects boundaries. For these reasons, we can adopt no other position, without ignoring, Department of the Interior interests in and responsibilities for the Nation's wildlife resources. In addition, we are interested in the possible effect watershed drainage would have on restorative proposals for Devils Lake in connection with the development of the authorized Garrison Diversion Unit of the Missouri River Basin project. If the proposed channels are effective in conveying water rapidly to Devils Lake instead of remaining in ground-water and upstream storage, this may alter our plans on amount of water required from the Garrison Diversion unit for Devils Lake restoration. As far as can be ascertained at this time, our plan |