NORTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, Mr. CHARLES EVANS, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, DEAR CHARLIE: Thank you for sending me a copy of the draft environmental statement for the Starkweather watershed project. I have reviewed same and find it complete and answering the questions which might be raised relative to the project. Flood damage in this area has been quite severe for some time and it appears to me, the positive aspects far outweigh the possible loss of wetlands. We would like to see this project proceed at the earliest possible date. Mr. CHARLES A. EVANS, BUD LANNOYE, RAMSEY COUNTY ABSTRACT Co., Devils Lake, N. Dak., October 20, 1972. State Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, DEAR SIR: I am the owner of over 1,100 acres located in Webster Township, Ramsey County, and have been the owner since 1929. My father settled on a good share of this farm in 1883 and we certainly know the history of this part of the country. As per your map channel "K" goes through part of my land and then comes up against fish and wildlife easements. The Coulee line that channel K follows has never flooded more than a few acres in all the time that we have owned this land. In fact all of the channels shown in your maps have been dry for many more years than they have handled any volume of water. Considering the estimated cost of this project and the lack of any value to offset said cost makes me wonder just what is in the mind of the U.S. Government. From the experience of other drainage units it is more than likely that we will have a burden of taxes that will be impossible to keep up. Last but not least such taxes will rapidly depreciate the value of our land for sale purposes-certainly nobody in their right mind would buy land with excessive taxes that do nothing for the property. We trust that the Government will channel their (ours) money to situations that are now desperate and not put it into a rathole that will produce nothing that is not now in surplus. Yours very truly, THOMAS M. KELLY. VALLEY CITY, N. DAK., October 19, 1972. Re USDA draft environmental statement (revised) for the proposed Starkweather watershed project, Cavalier and Ramsey Counties, N. Dak. Mr. CHARLES A. EVANS, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck, N. Dak. DEAR MR. EVANS: We, of the Valley City State College Environmental Action Group, do not feel that the revised Starkweather watershed draft environmental impact statement has fulfilled its basic purposes, which is to "build into a Federal agency's decisionmaking process a continuing consciousness of environmental considerations." The National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970, further charges that each impact statement must include a number of other considerations, of which we feel many are sorely lacking. These being: 1. A detailed description of the proposed action including information and technical data adequate to permit a careful assessment of environmental impact. 2. Alternatives to the proposed action that might avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects, including costs and environmental impacts of these alternatives. 3. Discussion of the probable impact on the environment, including any impact on ecological systems and any direct or indirect consequences that may result from the action. We feel that these areas have been glossed over and submersed in a sea of irrelevant figures and colorful language in a blatant attempt to misguide the opinions of the public and of the Congress of the United States. Many areas of environmental impact have been ignored, purposely left out, or conveniently worded in an attempt to satisfy concerned people. We feel that these are many, a few of which are: 1. No thought has been given to esthetic depreciation of beautiful Dakota terrain. 2. The proposal to replace natural glacial wetlands with "equivalent" wetland acreage stands out as an irresponsible attempt by BSFW to substantiate their claim of providing “the equivalent of maintaining 75 percent of existing wetlands." We wish to know the meaning of "equivalent" wetlands. 3. The failure to include comments from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department as to the wildlife impact. 4. Complete lack of regard to the many types of wildlife that will be affected by a change in their ecosystems. The Valley City State College Environmental Action Group, therefore, submits that the revised draft environmental statement for the proposed Starkweather watershed project must be rejected until a competent, unbiased, objective, and realistic evaluation of the environmental impact can be made. Sincerely, PAT SCHLECHT, Chairman, APPENDIX 31-ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RE CAMERON CREOLE WATERSHED PROJECT 1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. NATHANIEL P. REED, Washington, D.C., August 6, 1971. Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior, DEAR MR. REED: We understand that Louisiana State and local officials are proposing to build a road through a portion of the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge and will seek a permit from your Department for that road. We al understand that the regional office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has recently opposed the building of the road through the refuge and has suggested an alternative routing of the proposed road around the refuge. This proposal, combined with the Cameron Creole watershed project of the Soil Conservation Service, will severely damage the refuge. 1. Please provide to us: (a) a sketch of the area showing the State's proposed routing of the road and the Bureau's alternative routing, (b) a copy of the Bureau's environmental impact statement concerning the proposed road, and (c) a copy of all letters, memorandums, plans, studies, reports, and all other materials in the Department's or Bureau's files concerning the proposed road. 2. As in the case of the Cameron Creole project, a permit must be obtained from the Department, pursuant to section 4 (c) of the act of October 15, 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd (c)), to use the refuge "for purposes such as *** roads." (a) Please advise us whether or not the State or a local agency has applied for, and obtained, a permit from the Interior Department to use the refuge for this purpose. (b) Please provide to us the findings made by the Department under section (c) that the use is or is not "compatible" with the purposes for which the refuge was established. 3. Please provide to us a copy of the Bureau's master plan for this refuge. 4. (a) What is the purpose of this road? (b) Could this purpose be adequately achieved without routing the road through or near the refuge? Please explain. Chairman, Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. REUSS: Thank you for the letter signed by you and Mr. Vander Jagt concerning the proposed roadway across a portion of the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. The request also touches upon the Cameron Creole watershed project of the Soil Conservation Service. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has long opposed construction of this road on the grounds that substantial damage would occur to the marshlands 1 See appendix 26 of subcommittee hearings on stream channelization (pt. 4, June 14, 1971, p. 2607). of the refuge, and that a suitable alternative exists in the widening and reconstruction of State Highway 27. Since the primary purpose of the roadway would be to serve as a hurricane evacuation route for Cameron area residents during periods of alert, our opposition has created quite a large amount of controversy. We are most anxious to resolve the misunderstandings which have evolved from this proposal and to continue the spirit of cooperativeness enjoyed for so many years with the citizens of Louisiana. The most recent development has been an agreement whereby the Louisiana Highway Department is to provide us with a functional criteria for the road and develop construction and design plans for our review. Since the degree of environmental impact will vary according to the design specifications, we have not been in a position to accurately prepare a statement as required by Public Law 91-190. This matter has largely been handled by our regional office in Atlanta; therefore, most of the background information documents that you have requested must necessarily come from that source. That should require only a few days, after which our further reply will contain additional comments regarding the Cameron Creole watershed project of the Soil Conservation Service. We appreciate your interest in this matter, and it is our pleasure to be of assistance. Sincerely yours, CURTIS BOHLEN, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 16, 1972. Hon. HENRY S. REUSS, The Cameron-Creole watershed project had its beginning in the late 1940's as a drainage project. Inclusion of refuge lands in the project was opposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at that time. The project was quiescent until the early 1960's when planning was resumed. The plan was modified to include provisions for water management designed to improve conditions for waterfowl and fur animals both on and off the refuge. On this basis, the Department of the Interior in 1967 offered no objections to the modified project plan, provided due consideration was given to our recommendations transmitted to the Secretary of Agriculture. You are concerned that Mr. J. B. Earle on June 16, 1971, reported sanctioning of the Cameron-Creole project by the Fish and Wildlife Service as having "*** no adverse results from this project." While Mr. Earle's language could be construed to indicate complete agreement by the Fish and Wildlife Service, such was not the case. The conclusion concerning the adverse results was reached by the Soil Conservation Service without our concurrence. Shortly after receipt of your August 6 letter the regional director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in Atlanta, Ga., was furnished a copy of the draft environmental impact statement on the project for comment. During the simultaneous review of the matters of concern to you and review of the statement, it was concluded that even though there has been further modification of the work plan to protect estuarine and other environmental resources, there is insufficient data available on which to make a sound decision concerning the impact of the project on the environment. By letter of January 10 to Mr. Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service (copy enclosed), Under Secretary William T. Pecora requested a further comprehensive review of these matters. In his response of January 20 (copy enclosed), Mr. Norman Berg, acting for Mr. Grant, advised us that a final environmental impact statement is being pre pared; however, he did not respond to our request for further study. We shall withhold further comments on the proposed project until that statement has been provided us and we have had time to review it. Your letter requested that we furnish you with agreements, permits, and other material relative to the use of the refuge for purposes of the project. We are providing you correspondence relative to the approved work plan for the Cameron-Creole watershed. We point out that this material may be misleading since the plan has been further modified. As we view it, adoption of our request for a comprehensive review of the Cameron-Creole project could result in a negation of much of the past planning efforts. The following material relating to past planning efforts is enclosed: September 22, 1967, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife report to State conservationist on Cameron-Creole Work Plan. September 28, 1967, departmental comments on work plan for CameronCreole Watershed. October 5, 1967, departmental transmittal of Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife reconnaissance report. November 12, 1969, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Soil Conservation Service operation and maintenance agreement. June 25, 1971, letter from Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Regional Director to State conservationist concerning Watersheds Memorandum 108 review of Cameron-Creole Watershed plan. [NOTE. The materials referred to above are printed in the subcommittee's hearings on "Stream Channelization," part 4, app. 26.] Concerning the Pearl River comprehensive basin study, the overall draft environmental statement is presently being revised by the Mobile District Engineer, Corps of Engineers. We will provide you with a copy of the comments of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife when this revised draft is available for review. The Department of Agriculture has sent out for review a preliminary draft of an environmental statement covering those aspects of basin development which would be accomplished under Public Law 83-566. The Atlanta Regional Office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has furnished comments to the USDA Field Advisory Committee on this preliminary draft noting the frank coverage of the adverse environmental effects which would accrue as a result of the extensive stream channelization proposed. A copy of those comments (Jan. 26, 1972) is also enclosed. Also, we are enclosing pages J-33 and J-34 from appendix J, "Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Pearl River Basin" of the Pearl River comprehensive basin study report which express the attitude of the Bureau towards the channelization being contemplated. With respect to the Starkweather Watershed, we note that the quoted passage at the bottom of page five of your letter was contained in our letter dated October 16, 1969, to the Secretary of Agriculture, commenting on the original work plan prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. That plan has subsequently been revised. The most important of the revisions was the provision for preservation of 13,500 acres or equivalent of type 3 and 4 wetlands in the watershed, in accordance with the interagency agreement signed January 19, 1970, in Bismarck, N. Dak., (copy enclosed). [NOTE. The interagency agreement referred to is printed at app. 30, part C of these hearings.] The acquisition of those wetlands, to be accomplished before construction of the project in accordance with the revised work plan and the interagency agreement, has not proceeded as rapidly as we had hoped. The difficulty basically is lack of willing sellers. Opposition to the agreement by a small but highly vocal group within the watershed, some local misgivings about the project as a whole, a tight land market and perhaps other factors have slowed down the land acquisition. The most recent attempt to break the impasse occurred on October 5, 1971, in a meeting with Governor William L. Guy, held in his office in Bismarck, N. Dak. Attendees included Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, E. U. Curtis Bohlen, and representatives of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Soil Conservation Service, and project sponsors. The highlights of this meeting are summarized in a letter of October 8, 1971, to Governor Guy from Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton, and a letter of October 5, 1971, to Mr. Bohlen from Governor Guy. Copies of these letters, together with a summary of the understanding reached with Governor Guy which we have |