ment proposals were investigated. The selected project provides for 60.6 miles of channel improvement for flood prevention and agricultural water management. The project plan further provides that easements be secured on part of the 18,000 acres of existing wetlands. The easement prohibits draining or filling. Some areas will be purchased and developed for waterfowl production. These preservation measures will provide the equivalent of maintaining 75 percent of existing wetlands. The plan also provides that there shall be no construction on the Starkweather watershed project until all preservation measures to compensate for wetland losses are fulfilled. Channel A, which connects Dry Lake with the Six-Mile Bay area of Devils Lake, will serve as the outlet. This channel is 4.1 miles in length with a maximum cut of 30 feet. It is very important that Channel A be kept as free of snow as possible. Therefore, living snowfence plantings will be established on both the west and the east side of this channel. A concrete structure, including provision for water level control, will be provided at the outlet of Dry Lake. The purpose of this structure is to prevent degrading at the inlet to Channel A and to serve as a waterfowl habitat management feature by providing water level control. Four grade stabilization structures are incorporated into the channel designs to control grade. All areas utilized by channels or spoil will be vegetated. An estimated 345 acres of types 3 and 4 wetlands necessarily destroyed by project channels will be replaced by various compensatory alternatives that have been agreed to and enumerated in the project plan. As public health safeguards against vector mosquito production, every effort will be made to eliminate mosquito breeding areas that could result from project measure construction. There are no known areas of historical or archeological value in the watershed. In the event areas containing archeological historical values are encountered during construction, the director of the State Historical Society of North Dakota will be notified at once. (i) Environmental impact STATEMENT The conservation land treatment program will be accelerated, an additional 79,760 acres being treated. This, plus the acres which now have adequate treatment, will reduce erosion and sediment production from 174,000 acres of land or 78 percent of the watershed area. Channel improvement will reduce flooding on 66,700 acres of existing cropland. Drop structures will be provided in channels to prevent water from reaching erosive velocities. Channel banks will be sloped and vegetated to prevent erosion. A control structure at the outlet of Dry Lake will permit lake level control for wildlife. Wetland preservation provisions of the plan will insure the preservation of the equivalent of 13,500 acres of types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands habitat for wildlife use. Project installation will not directly offset the remaining approximately 4,000 acres of types 4 and 5 wetlands. The potential exists, however, for local interests to extend the project works of improvement to drain those wetlands acreages without Federal assistance. Channel improvements will drain 345 acres of the existing 18,000 acres of wetlands in the watershed. More than 10.000 acres of semipermanent wetlands, if not protected by easements against drainage, could be lost through on-the-farm and group drainage, once the primary laterals and major outlet are constructed. Channel work will destroy about 105 acres of grassland that provides terrestrial cover which varies considerably in type and quality, as well as quantity. In some reaches there is only a narrow band of grass, and in other reaches there may be small clumps of brush and better permanent type cover. (ii) Favorable environmental effects 1. Reduces erosion and sediment production from an additional 36 percent of the watershed area. 2. Reduces flooding on 66.700 acres of existing cropland. 3. Provides lake level control on Dry Lake for waterfowl habitat management. 4. Preserves the equivalent of 75 percent of the existing types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands by a combination of preservation easements or purchase of wetlands and adjacent upland. 5. Compensates for 345 acres of types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands drained by project channel improvement. 6. Provides mosquito control by reducing floodwater damages on 73,000 acres of watershed area and providing improved outlets for on-farm drains. (iii) Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided 1. Channel improvement will drain 345 acres of types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands. 2. One hundred and five acres of upland habitat will be destroyed by channel improvement. 3. Groundwater recharge will be reduced. 4. The manmade appearance of the constructed channnels will not be as in their natural, undisturbed state. 5. Wildlife systems now existing in the area of the proposed channel construc tion will be altered. 6. The potential exists for local interests to extend the project measures to drain the equivalent of 4,000 acres of existing types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands not preserved by easement or purchase. (iv) Alternatives to the proposed action One alternative could be a single-purpose approach to the flooding problem financed by local funds. If this approach is used, there is a strong possibility that the water level structure on Dry Lake and the preservation and compensatory provisions would be eliminated. The above alternative would not provide project funds for the accelerated land treatment program. There is the possibility that the 73,000 acres subject to flooding could be developed as a wetland area. This would require the construction of innumerable water areas and several hundred miles of dikes and levees. Local people have expressed opposition to this type of development. Planned land treatment, without channel improvement, would reduce annual damages by only 5 percent. If the planned project were not installed, the loss of wildlife habitat to be sustained by project installation would be avoided. Flooding would continue, however, and monetary benefits forgone by not implementing the project would average about $391,000 per year. (v) Relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity Seventy-seven percent of the watershed land is used for crop production. Ninety-two percent of the area subject to flooding is cropland. This ratio is not expected to change significantly in the future. Crop production is, and will continue to be, the major source of income for landowners and operators in the watershed. The project will, through proper land treatment and use, preserve the land resource base for continued production. Flood prevention will minimize erop losses and help stabilize the economy of the area. The requirements for preserving the equivalent of 75 percent of existing types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands will insure the continued benefits of this valuable natural resource for wildlife. Project benefits will continue beyond their designated life since installed measares will still be effective in conserving the land resource of the area. (vi) Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources The project channel improvement will require 1,500 acres of land. The present use of this land is 1,050 acres of cropland, 105 acres of grassland and 345 acres of types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands. No other permanent commitments of resources are known to be required for this project. CONSULTATION-GENERAL The application for assistance for the Starkweather watershed project was submitted to and approved by the North Dakota State Soil Conservation Committee. The plan for solving water and related land resource problems was developed in full consultation with Federal, State and local agencies. Over 20 coordination meetings were held and innumerable contacts were made during work plan development. Prior to preparation of the final plan, an informal field review was held in the watershed at which time interests were invited to present their views and recommendations either orally or in writing. The plan and environmental statement have been prepared in consideration of such comments and recommendations as were provided by reviewing Federal and State agencies, and the Governor of North Dakota. Several wildlife organizations such as the North Dakota Wildlife Federation and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society have publicly expressed opposition to the proposed project. Their opposition is based on the possible loss of the majority of the wetlands in the watershed. The wetland preservation requirements of the watershed work plan will maintain the equivalent of 75 percent of the 18,000 acres of types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands in the watershed. CONSULTATION WITH APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES Prior to authorization to prepare a detailed work plan for the Starkweather watershed, a task force with representation from the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the North Dakota State Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the North Dakota State Water Commission and the local sponsoring organizations developed planning criteria. These criteria provided guidelines for environmental considerations. Planning progressed to the development of the first draft of the watershed work plan. Questions were raised as to the adequacy of the draft plan's wildlife preservation provisions. Additional meetings and discussions resulted in an agreement signed by the project sponsors, the Soil Conservation Service, the North Dakota State Water Commission, and the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife which provided for measures to preserve the equivalent of 13,500 acres of types 3. 4 and 5 wetlands in the watershed. The agreement further provides that construction will not begin until the preservation objective is achieved. The U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife personnel assisted in rewriting the draft work plan to include the provisions of the agreement as well as other comments they had after review of the first draft. The State Department of Health pointed out that the city of Starkweather has had drainage problems and some basements have seepage problems. A slough north of the city also serves as a habitat for mosquitoes and could be a health problem. The plan recognizes an incidental benefit to the city of Starkweather. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare indicates that the proposed works of improvement would benefit mosquito contro by reducing noodwater damages on 73,000 acres of watershed area and providing improved outlets for on-farm drains. On the other hand, the proposed wildlife habitat developments may provide favorable conditions for production of certain species of mosquitoes which normally breed in semipermanent or permanent bodies of water. They recommended, as public health safeguards against mosquito production, the following principles and practices be adhered to in carrying out the proposed work plan: 1. Borrow areas resulting from project development should be made completely self-draining if they are not to be utilized as wildlife habitat. 2. Portions of natural drainageways and channels that are cut off or bypassed by new channels should be filled where practicable or should be provided with drains to minimize shallow ponding. 3. Ponding areas to be utilized as wildlife habitat should be constructed with steep banks to discourage growth of vegetation and accumulation of flotage in shallow water. A minimum depth of 2 to 3 feet is suggested to minimize production of mosquitoes and to enhance wildlife habitat. 4. Provisions should be made for water level management in waterfowl areas to minimize mosquito production. 5. Underdrains, culverts, inlets, etc., should be installed on grade to prevent shallow ponding. Every effort will be made to comply with the above recommendations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated the plan is not clear regarding channel improvements alleviating the flooding around the margin of the lakes without providing improvements to the outlet control structures of the lakes. They further indicate the work plan does not discuss the effects that local drainage improvements would have on the major outlet channel discharge. The plan provides a control structure for the lake within the watershed and the proposed channel design in based on the total drainage area contributing at the design frequency rate. The U.S. Department of the Interior commented on the effect the watershed project would have on restorative proposals of their Department for Devils Lake. Studies indicate that the proposed Starkweather watershed project would have relatively minor impact on the Devils Lake restoration proposal. Approved by: Charles A. Evans. Date: July 23, 1971. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Mr. KENNETH E. GRANT, Administrator, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. GRANT: Sections 7 and 10(b) of the Council's Revised Guidelines on the preparation of environmental impact statements (pursuant to section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act) call for the preparation and circulation of draft statements for appropriate Federal, State and local comment. Your submission of a final environmental impact statement for the StarkWeather, North Dakota, project appears to be not in conformity with this requirement for the filing of a draft statement. Your letter of transmittal indicates that the views of other agencies were obtained during the plan review process. However, there is no indication of when this took place nor are the comments appended to the final environmental impact statement as required by section 10 (b) of the guidelines. Unless the guidelines have been complied with, I suggest you resubmit the Starkweather environmental impact statement in draft form with distribution to the relevant Federal, State, and local agencies and groups for comment. Sincerely, TIMOTHY ATKESON, General Counsel. PART "C": COMMENTS ON SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR N. DAK., WATERSHED PROJECT-AUGUST 1972 [NOTE. STARKWEATHER, Revised 1972 NEPA statement is in subcommittee files.] Mr. CHARLES A. EVANS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., December 4, 1972. State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, Bismarck, N. Dak. DEAR MR. EVANS: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1972, requesting our views and comments on a draft environmental statement which was prepared in support of a plan for the Starkweather watershed, North Dakota. We believe that the draft statement does not provide an adequate discussion on those aspects of the existing environment and project related impacts as they relate to those areas within our jurisdiction or special expertise. Accordingly, we believe the statement must be revised to reflect the concerns outlined in the subsequent paragraphs of this letter. In addition, we plan to provide you with some generalized observations on topics cited in the statement which we believe warrant further consideration. We do not believe this statement can fully assess the environmental impacts associated with this project if the study area is limited to the Starkweather watershed only. We maintain that there is a close interrelationship between the Starkweather and Edmore watershed drainages and the area between these two watersheds and this work plan will cause direct and indirect impacts on these drainage areas. We maintain that the scope of the study area should be broadened to assess impacts in these related areas. Our Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is prepared to assist you in developing a full description of the wetlands in the larger study area and in assessing the project related impacts on fish and wlidlife resources in the revised study area. The statement has identified two water resource programs planned for this area which appear to have conflicting goals. Under the Public Law 83-566 program, a project is being proposed which in addition to flood control will enable the drainage of wetland areas. Another program now underway is geared to acquiring wetland areas from local interests for purposes of retaining wetlands as habitat for the fish and wildlife resources. The statement should provide a full discussion on these programs so that one can appreciate the role of each program as it relates to this study area. We believe the section which describes the existing environmental setting should provide some supplemental data on agricultural operations in the study area. For example, the present and future commitment of land to agriculture should be identified along with some insight as the present classification of the future agricultural lands. Some insight as to the crops grown at various locations in the study area and the yields would also assist in the environmental appraisal. The section should also contain an inventory of the various types of wetlands in the study area and estimate the value of these wetlands to wildlife with particular emphasis given to the wildlife productive capacity of these wetlands. Other wildlife values should also be discussed and the economic value of these resources should also be estimated for purposes of assessing the tradeoff between wildlife and agricultural values. We also recommend that this statement be revised to delete all references to the agreement between the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife relating to land acquisition and easement goals. The program for wetland preservation is not a function of this project and the proposal does little to foster the preservation objectives. In fact, the project results in a net loss of wetlands and the related waterfowl carrying capacity and production. We suggest that the environmental setting discuss the mineral resources of the study area and the impact section indicate that the proposal would have no adverse effect on the mineral resources and related industry of the area. Similarly, the proposal does not involve any Indian lands and the impact section can reflect that no adverse effects are contemplated. The discussion of archeological resources needs to be strengthened. The presence or absence of these resources should be determined by a competent survey and the impact of construction and operation should be assessed and set forth in the appropriate sections of the statement. Plans for the salvage of these resources and costs should also be set forth if such action is deemed necessary. We believe the statement should provide a full discussion on the future environmental setting of the study area. Only a passing reference is made to this subject in the statement and it indicates that present land use will continue. This assumption must be questioned because the statement also indicates that local interests have in the past conducted private drainage operations on a significant scale. Hence, the future of the flood plain would very likely be altered by increased agricultural land use, decreased wetland areas, and by a possible increase in flooding in the lower sections of the study area. The statement should assess the changes in the environmental setting of the study area which result from direct or secondary project effects. For example, this proposal will impact on the recreational resources of the area. Waterfowl and other wildlife are major attractions for recreational pursuits, and drainage of wildlife habitat would lead to a decrease in recreational opportunities and cause a resultant decline in economic activity in the recreation-supported businesses. The following comments are offered with respect to the specific sections of the draft environmental statement. PROJECT MEASURES Page 1, paragraph 1.—The term "channel improvement" should be changed to "stream modification." The proposed construction work will not improve existing channels or create new channels for environmental purposes. It should be clearly stated that wetland preservation is not a project feature. The protection of wetlands was implemented primarily (except for local sponsor easements) by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and was funded by duck stamp money through the Department of the Interior. No Public Law 83566 funds are allocated for this purpose. Again, the term "channel improvement" is not appropriate. A more accurate reference would be 60.6 miles of channels. Case in point is channel A which will involve the construction of 6.1 miles of new channel from Dry Lake to Six Mile Bay of Devils Lake. Page 1, paragraph 2.-Apparently 16,200 additional acres received land treatment between the time of project approval and March 1972. More details are required. How well have these measures been maintained? What percentage of the total needed land treatment does this represent? Does the 16,200 acres of additionally treated land mentioned above indicate acres of "crop residue management"? Also listed under adequate treatment is 2,900 acres of wildlife wetland habitat. Who is managing this land? Where are these tracts located? Is this part of the wetland preservation accomplished by local sponsors? |