located in east-central Louisiana, and two of the three parishes about the Mississippi River. The entire watershed lies in the Mississippi alluvial plain section of Louisiana. The watershed lies within a ring-leveed area of the Mississippi Valley, with elevations ranging from 40 to 50 feet m.s.l. There are numerous natural lakes and streams generally distributed throughout the watershed that mark former routes of the Mississippi, Tensas, and Black Rivers. Today, levees of the Tensas and Black Rivers delineate the western watershed boundary, and the Mississippi River levee is the eastern boundary. Land uses under existing conditions are estimated by the Soil Conservation Service to be 88,400 acres of cropland, 100,600 acres of woodland, 20,000 acres of pastureland, and 16,000 acres of miscellaneous lands. The Louisiana statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan indicates a need for additional recreation areas and facilities in planning region 6, which includes Concordia and Catahoula Parishes. The plan identified three lakes in the watershed-St. John, Concordia, and Cocodrie--as areas for potential recreation development. Identified recreation needs include swimming, picnicking, camping, boating, and hiking. There are about 14,000 surface acres of lakes in the watershed. Although access is limited to two public boat launching ramps and several commercially operated boat liveries, outdoor recreation opportunities are afforded on about 5,000 acres of water. Three natural streams of significance are within the watershed. One of these, Bayou Cocodrie, has been designated and protected by the State of Louisiana as a natural scenic river. Some 13 miles of the stream lie within the watershed and afford opportunities for fishing, hunting, water skiing, and wilderness experience. Workmans Bayou and Bayou Cross Cocodrie retain much of their natural beauty, though a number of camps and homes have been built on the banks. These lakes and streams and adjoining lands have the potential for development as a State park complex capable of providing quality recreation experiences ultimately for 4 million visits annually. Watershed problems have been described by the Soil Conservation Service as extreme flooding with negligible amounts of erosion, sediment, and scour damages. The following remedial measures are proposed: 263 miles of channel excavation, 11 miles of clearing and shaping, 472 miles of onfarm drainage ditching, 68,000 acres of improved cover conditions, 40 farm ponds, 2,000 acres of wildlife habitat development, and 10,000 acres of wildlife habitat preservation. While no recreation features are included, the fish and wildlife mitigation measures would afford some opportunities for general recreation use. Implementation of the watershed project would have adverse impacts on the outdoor recreation potentials and related environmental values. Agricultural drainage and accelerated runoff would increase turbidity, siltation rates, and pollution levels in the lakes. Channelization of streams would mar their beauty and decrease or eliminate their recreation utility. In addition, 44,000 acres of woodland would be converted to pasture or cropland. It is concluded that these adverse impacts were not fully evaluated in formulating the work plan. TALLADEGA CREEK WATERSHED, ALABAMA The Talladega Creek watershed is located in east-central Alabama and extends in an east-west direction for approximately 35 miles through portions of the Piedmont Plateau and the Limestone Valley and upland areas. It covers 105,000 acres in portions of Clay and Talladega Counties. The eastern portion of the watershed is within the Talladega National Forest, which is characterized by heavily forested, steep slopes. Smaller hills and some flat areas, most of which are under cultivation, typify the remainder of the watershed area. Present land uses within the watershed are row crops, 4,725 acres; pasture, 10,486 acres, woodlands, 85,921 acres; and miscellaneous, 4,838 acres. The Alabama statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan indicates a need for additional recreation areas and facilities in this section of the State. Identified recreation needs include swimming, boating, hiking, camping, picnicking, and preservation of historic sites. Talladega Creek flows westward from the Talladega Mountains, which have elevations up to 2,000 feet, to its confluence with the Coosa River at an elevation of 420 feet. It is a free-flowing, clear cool stream fed by numerous springs throughout much of its length and is suitable for boating 6 months or more during the year. The beauty of this natural stream passing through forested hills can be enjoyed by those who choose to either float or hike. Two covered bridges cross the creek, and two old grist mills are located on its banks. While there are no recreation facilities along the creek at the present time, the features described above have potential for development. The Soil Conservation Service watershed project calls for construction of 11 small impoundments on tributaries to Talladega Creek, 29 miles of channelization, and land treatment measures. Project purposes are flood control, sedimentation control, erosion control, and water supply for the city of Talladega. The average annual damage from floods is expected to be reduced by approximately 71 percent after completion of the project. The watershed work plan, if implemented, would provide one multiplepurpose impoundment which would designate recreation as a project purpose. This structure is, however, located within the Talladega National Forest and some distance from the city of Talladega. The construction of 11 impoundments would inundate a total of 1,193 acres currently in woodlands, crops, or pastures. The channelization work, including the excavation of 407,200 cubic yards of material, would significantly alter the stream by eliminating 15 miles of the potential scenic floating trail, adversely affecting the esthetics of 29 miles of the stream, endangering one covered bridge and grist mill, and possibly causing siltation to the upper, more scenic portion of the stream. Some of the potential for streamside developments, the hiking trail, and one covered bridge would not be significantly altered by the project. More intensive recreation development could be provided at a small reservoir site near the city of Talladega. Included at this site could be facilities for handicapped persons to serve the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind located in the city. It is concluded that the potentials for recreation enhancement were not fully considered, and the adverse impacts of the proposed measures were not adequately evaluated in formulating the work plan. BIG CREEK WATERSHED, GEORGIA The Big Creek watershed, 66,952 acres in size, is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of north-central Georgia near Atlanta and is a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. The topography is rolling to steep, and the present land use consists of cropland, 6,566 acres; woodland, 43,623 acres; pastureland, 11,151 acres; and idle and miscellaneous, 5,612 acres. Big Creek watershed is bisected by two planning regions defined in the Georgia statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan the Georgia mountain region and the Atlanta metropolitan region. The plan notes that the mountain region has surplus recreation capacity and identifies substantial needs for high density, urban recreation areas in the metropolitan region. These needs exist within the Atlanta area. There are ample opportunities for water-oriented recreation at Lakes Allatoona and Lanier, Federal multiple-purpose projects located within the day use radius of the residents of the watershed. The main recreation resource in the watershed is the free-flowing Big Creek with its numerous small tributaries. The forest land, fishery, and wildlife resources are all low in value in their existing conditions. With the ever-expanding Atlanta metropolitan area, this entire watershed could become prime urban land. The Soil Conservation Service small watershed work plan calls for 13 single purpose, floodwater retarding structures, one multiple-purpose structure, and approximately 54 miles of single purpose channel improvement for flood prevention. These structures would inundate approximately 876 acres of land, and the proposed channelization would essentially destroy the entire length of Big Creek. The environmental implications range from a temporary destruction of the land adjacent to the stream to a permanent destruction of a large free-flowing watercourse. It is concluded that the urbanizing impact of the growth of the Atlanta metropolitan area was not fully considered in formulating the work plan. Development for short term agricultural benefits would in large measure destroy the potential of Big Creek and its flood plain for meeting urban recreation needs in the future. WHITESAND-GREENS CREEKS WATERSHED, MISSISSIPPI The Whitesand-Greens Creeks watershed includes an area of 131,260 acres, most of which is in the southwest portion of Jefferson Davis County, Miss. The basin is characterized by rolling to flat terrain. Present land use is 59 percent wooded, 19 percent cropland, 16 percent pasture, and 6 percent miscellaneous. The climate is typical for the Southern United States-somewhat hot and humid-but on the whole, the watershed area provides an excellent setting for most outdoor recreation activities. The Mississippi statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan indicates a need for additional reservoirs for this part of the State to help provide water for recreation. Further needs are identified as additional city, county, regional, and Federal acreage and facilities for boating, camping, archery, skeet shooting, trails, and interpretive exhibits. The lower reaches of Whitesand Creek and its associated lands comprise the significant recreation resources having potential for development of their natural values. The creek banks are relatively high and wooded, and the stream is clear with a sandy bottom. The area has potential for development for picnicking, camping, and swimming in an attractive natural setting. In concert with this development, a 9.6-mile reach of Whitesand Creek would provide boating opportunities. The Soil Conservation Service work plan calls for 10 single-purpose, floodwater control structures, one multiple-purpose structure, and two sediment control structures. Planned channel work involves 50 miles of realinement, 3 miles of channel enlargement, 7 miles of clearing and shaping, and 10 miles of cleaning and snagging. Implementation of the impoundment features of the work plan would generally have a favorable impact on recreation. A 323-acre recreation area would be developed adjacent to a 108-acre reservoir and provide opportunities for boating, fishing, camping, and picnicking. These features and the land treatment measures would reduce turbidity and sedimentation in the streams. The flood protection afforded would encourage more intensive agricultural use of the flood plain. It is anticipated that the single-purpose flood control structures will have little potential for satisfying area recreation needs. These structures are to remain on private lands with no provision for public access or recreation facilities. Channel work would result in an adverse impact on the natural beauty of the streams and their ecosystems, degrade water quality, and encourage more intensive agricultural use of the flood plain. It is concluded that while development of a multiple-purpose structure would help meet recreation needs in the area, the formulation of the work plan did not adequately consider the recreation potential of the lower reach of Whitesand Creek. FINDINGS OF THE PILOT STUDY The results of the pilot study indicate that watershed projects have the potential for both enhancement and degradation of recreation and related environmental values; that work plans did not adequately consider values inherent in natural, free-flowing streams and associated lands, and that local interests are receiving limited information on which to formulate watershed plans for recreation and environmental functions. Regional Director Wood recommends participation in the small watershed program and that a memorandum of understanding be developed between this Bureau and the Soil Conservation Service to define their respective roles. We concur with this recommendation and note that the other five regional directors have, based upon their value judgments, also recommended Bureau involvement. The magnitude of the small watershed program is indicated by the status reported by the Department of Agriculture on August 1. 1971: 2.931 applications received; 1,622 projects authorized for planning assistance; and 1.045 projects approved for operations. The applications received involve a land area of about 226 million acres, and the watersheds approved for operation total 65 million acres. The scope of the initial Bureau effort must be in consonance with the prevailing limited level of funds and manpower. We believe the most effective approach for this Bureau, to make a substantial input which would improve the performance of this program in providing recreation opportunities and preventing adverse environmental impacts, is to provide technical assistance to the local interests and the Soil Conservation Service work plan parties. Bureau work should be initiated at the earliest practicable point in the watershed planning process. With your approval, contacts will be made with the Soil Conservation Service to initiate a memorandum of understanding to provide guidance for participation in studies by the field staffs of the two agencies, so that we will be able to move expeditiously if funds and personnel become available. Approved: January 25, 1972. R. L. EASTMAN. APPENDIX 36.-BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE "POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR THE PLANNING AND REVIEW OF STREAM CHANNEL ALTERATION PROJECTS" (REVISED, JANUARY 18, 1972), AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 2, 1972. Hon. HENRY S. REUSS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. REUSS: Enclosed is a copy of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife "Policy and Guidelines for the Planning and Review of Stream Channel Alteration Projects," as revised January 18, 1972. This was recently requested by telephone from your office. Sincerely yours, NATHANIEL REED, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. WATER PROJECT PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, BUREAU POLICY AND STANDARDS 2.353 POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR THE PLANNING AND REVIEW OF STREAM CHANNEL ALTERATION PROJECTS-REVISED JANUARY 18, 1972 Basis Increasingly, flood control, drainage, and navigation projects are being planned and constructed by agencies of the Federal Government (mainly the SCS and the corps) that involve extensive and severe alteration of streams and wetlands essential to fish, wildlife, and the quality of man's natural environment. If the emphasis on these destructive practices continues, the ultimate result will be the serious degradation of these valuable and irreplaceable natural resources throughout the Nation. In general, the Bureau does not object to the construction and operation of projects planned with due attention to environmental values. However, it cannot support or condone flood control, drainage, or navigation projects which would damage environmental resources but have only localized, mainly private benefits to relatively few people. Often with such projects, the related damages to fish and wildlife and other natural, public resources far outweigh the limited public benefits. The Bureau exercises delegated authority to participate in the formulation of plans, to provide advice, and to review proposals of Federal and other agencies authorized to plan, construct, operate, permit, or assist projects for water resource development. Together the Bureau and other bureaus of the Department have comprehensive delegated responsibility in environmental and related matters.' The Bureau will request the support of other bureaus where they are known to have special responsibility in a particular case. The Bureau is authorized and is obligated to give the water development agencies, as well as the public, the best possible technical advice and recommendations in order that sound and reasonable decisions can be made regarding the use of our Nation's water and related land resources. 1 The following laws are pertinent to the responsibilities of the Department of the Interior in the review of permit applications. Federal work in navigable waters, and other water and land development projects: the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended: the Fish and Wildilfe Act of 1956: the Estuary Protection Act: the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act: the Federal Power Act: the Act of March 3, 1899: the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969: the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act: the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 the Act of May 28, 1963 (77 Stat. 49; 16 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.-the so-called Organic Act of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation): Antiquities Act of 1966: Historic Sites Act of 1935: the Historic Preservation Act of 1966; and other acts which set out the policies and intents of the Federal Government with respect to environmental quality. Purpose Bureau policy and guidelines are needed to establish a more uniform approach to planning, evaluating, and reporting on proposed flood control, drainage, and navigation projects. The engineering practice specifically addressed herein is stream channel alteration. Stream alteration is so detrimental to fish, wildlife, and other environmental resources that the policy and guidelines set out herein require the strictest adherence by Bureau personnel involving the most critical analysis of proposed work and the strongest contention for responsible planning. Types of stream channel alteration Channelization.-Involves more or less complete shaping of the waterway bed and/or bank to provide a cross section greater than that of the natural channel. The purpose is to increase the capacity for the conveyance of water, as in flood management or water supply, or for the passage of water-borne traffic, i.e., navigation. It may involve straightening or realining the channel. Often the spoil resulting from excavating the channel is used to form levees; in other cases it is expediently disposed of. Where the channel is straightened and completely reshaped, oxbows and other bends are cut off, riverine vegetation is removed from a considerable width, banks are usually sloped and may be armored with stone or concrete, channel bottoms are widened and lowered, and a uniform bottom grade may be imposed. Wetlands adjoining the channel may be drained, filled, or cut off from overflow by spoil levees, and groundwater levels may be lowered. The work may facilitate drainage throughout the watershed by permitting private construction of drains otherwise not feasible because of flooding they would cause downstream. Siltation and turbidity are markedly increased during construction, and erosion and scouring may continue long after project works are completed. The resulting turbidity and siltation are not restricted to the work area but often seriously affect aquatic resources for many miles downstream. Clearing and snagging.—A form of alteration which is usually limited to removal of sand bars, rocks, natural weirs and other rock outcrops, lodged trees and other debris, as well as manmade obstructions to flow or navigation. It normally does not involve planned realinement (straightening) or deepening of the channel, but may be as destructive to fishery values as channelization when instream work with heavy equipment disturbs the entire streambed rather than only constructed and obstructed areas. In total the impact on environmental resources from clearing and snagging differ from those of channelization only in degree, and in some cases the adverse effects are equally severe. Environmental consequences to be considered The obvious effect of channel alteration is scenic degradation, but many of the serious effects are not obvious. The losses of fish and wildlife production and related and other values can be equally severe, resulting from: First. Clearing of riverine wildlife habitat with elimination of wildlife niches; Second. Elimination of acquatic life niches in number and diversity for desirable species: Third. Secondary clearing of natural flood-plain vegetation with replacement by agricultural or timber crops; Fourth. Filling of valuable wildlife habitat areas with spoil; Sixth. Dry period extension and spreading of stream flow; Seventh. Lowering groundwater levels; Eighth. Loss of seasonal overflow to wetlands; Ninth. Turbidity and sedimentation in project area and downstream; Tenth. Increased flooding and erosion downstream; Eleventh. Increased solar heating of water and cleared lands; Twelfth. Increased pollution with cumulative addition of salts, organic nutrients, and pesticides in project area and downstream because of intensified land use; Thirteenth. Degradation or loss of nature's "biological waste treatment complex" in the wetlands and overflow lands; and Fourteenth. Destruction of archeological and historical sites. These physical changes are evidenced by : First. Loss of fishing, hunting, and other recreational and navigation values; Second. Displacement or loss of rare, endangered, and unique species; Third. Loss of sport fishery quality through warming water and reducing diversity of habitat niches; |