WILSON CREEK WATERSHED, SOUTH CAROLINA Testimony by Congressman Blackburn states: "The Interior Department in its report clearly projects that significant fishery damage will occur because of the stream channelization of the project. The Soil Conservation Service report states that stream channelization 'may reduce' fishery values." Department of the Interior Comments on the Watershed Work Plan, dated October 13, 1969 state: "Project construction and operation are not expected to have significant adverse effect on wildlife resources. The 22 miles off stream channel alteration will cause significant fishery damages; however, no feasible means could be found to reduce damages to stream habitat. Waters created by the mul tiple-purpose impoundment for recreation and flood prevention will provide a moderate quality lake fishery. The impoundment will be open to public use." The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, in cooperation with the South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department made a reconnaissance study of Wilson Creek Watershed in accordance with provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. Excerpts from the report are as follows: "Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Watershed are of moderate to low value. The lower reaches of Wilson and Coronaca Creeks are relatively small and support low to moderate populations of bullheads, suckers, carp and sunfishes. Angling pressure on watershed streams to be affected is estimated to be over 200 man days annually. Wildlife resources consist primarily of moderate to low populations of farm game and fur animals. Deer have been stocked in the area and are increasing in number. Hunting pressure is high for quail, rabbit and raccoon with limited interest in other species. Deer are not hunted within the watershed at present, but if the existing herd continues to increase, a hunting season will probably be established. "Project construction and operation is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wildlife resources. Channelization will chiefly involve stream habitat of low fishery value. However, the 19 miles of planned stream excavation will, in aggregate, constitute significant fishery damages. In this project, however, no feasible means could be found to reduce damages to stream habitat. Waters created by the multiple-purpose recreation impoundment will provide a moderate quality lake fishery, and will be open for public use. Although this habitat will not be an in-kind replacement, it will offset the loss of public stream fishing opportunity. To assure development of maximum fishery potential from proposed project reservoirs, their design and management should be coordinated with the South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department." The watershed work plan for Wilson Creek reflects, on page 5, these moderate to low value fish and wildlife resources. The effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources, as provided in the BSF&W report referred to above, are briefly described on page 18 of the work plan as follows: "Project construction and operation is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on wildlife resources. The loss of any public stream fishing opportunity caused by channel excavation will be off-set by the proposed multipurpose impoundment." The environmental statement did not indicate these minor adverse environmental effects on the Wilson Creek project. The environmental statement did show that about 200 acres would be covered by the sediment pools of planned structures and that the more than 20 miles of channel improvement may reduce the low value fishery resources by about 2000 man-days of fishing annually. The environmental statement also presented, as the views of BSF&W, that the stream channel improvement will cause no significant change in the already low value fishery and wildlife resource. This statement was intended to refer only to the wildlife resource, since the damage to the fishery resource was described earlier. The statement was deficient in not making this point clear. These damages and losses were considered as irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources and were described in that section of the environmental statement. The environmental statement should have included the comments of the Department of the Interior on the work plan even though their comments were not made in the form of problems or objections. Our current form at describing consultation on the plan is designed to prevent recurrence of this problem. Mr. DINGELL. Counsel, would you yield? I would like to pursue this particular course of questioning further. Mr. Blackburn says of the report with regard to the Rocky Creek watershed, South Carolina: The report prepared by the Department of the Interior projects that there would be a loss of wildlife and destruction of wildlife habitat due to flooding resulting from the impoundment of water. The SCS Section 102 report contains no reference to this objection. Why not? Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, again, Mr. Chairman, I would have to refer to that case, because this project may have been approved before the Environmental Act was passed. Mr. DINGELL. Well, all right then. Then our reporter is keeping full track of questions, and the record will be available to you to respond to them, but I am asking you to respond for purposes of the record why the report of the Department of Agriculture, under section 102, contains no reference to the objections of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, permit us to submit a statement for the record in response to this question. Mr. DINGELL. You have this permission. (Supplemental statement appears on p. 977.) Mr. DINGELL. Now to discuss this question here in the light of what we are talking about, I would like to have you direct yourself to the way in which these 102 statements are filed and put together. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Does it involve, in the draft state, the comments of the Department of Interior? Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman. May I ask that Mr. Lane be responsive to this question? Mr. DINGELL. Give your name please, sir, to the reporter. Mr. LANE. I am R. Neil Lane, Director, Water Shed Planning Division, SCS. Mr. DINGELL. Go ahead. Mr. LANE. The Department had forwarded all six of these plans about which you asked to the Bureau of the Budget for transmittal to the Congress before the Environmental Policy Act was passed. Mr. DINGELL. All six were. Mr. LANE. All six were. Mr. DINGELL. All right. These were subsequent statements? Mr. LANE. These were subsequent statements. Mr. DINGELL. Made about on-going projects? Mr. LANE. These were made subsequent to the time the plans were transmitted to the Congress and subsequent to the time that other agencies had finished commenting on the watershed work plans. The Senate Public Works Committee requested environmental impact statements on this group of plans, and we prepared them, and because of the timing that was involved, they were not distributed in draft form to the other concerned Federal agencies, as draft statements are now. They were prepared in a rather hurried fashion and I suspect the answer to your question is that this point was just frankly overlooked. But we will check it out for you, and give you a more complete answer on it. Mr. DINGELL. Well, of course, the statute imposes rather clear responsibility on the Department of Agriculture as to how it is to comport itself. You have a list of agencies, with special jurisdiction and expertise. Among them is the Department of Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 55-360-71-pt. 1- -63 You are telling us that then, I assume, that the provision of law requiring these environmental impact statements would be circulated to agencies of special jurisdiction and competence, was not complied with. Is that what you are saying, sir, with regard to Rocky Creek watershed? Mr. LANE. We wouldn't put it in the setting that the law was not complied with. We would put it in the setting that an interim procedure was used. Whether it was in violation of the law or not, I am not sure. Mr. DINGELL. Well Mr. LANE. But at least it was not Mr. DINGELL. Well, let's go into this. Because you are entitled to fair treatment, but you also have to recognize the law imposes certain duties on you. Mr. LANE. That is correct. Mr. DINGELL. Now did your statement indicate that this was an interim statement, or did it say it was a final 102 statement? Mr. LANE. It was considered to be a final 102 statement. Mr. DINGELL. Well, you didn't clear this, according to what you are telling me, with agencies of special jurisdiction and expertise as required by section 102 of Public Law 91-190? Mr. LANE. Yes. That is correct. We did not clear it, and the reason we did not clear it is because of the timing. Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now the guidelines issued by the President, requiring you to do the same thing, set out eight agencies to be consulted in connection with the preparation of environmental impact statements. There is a listing of a number of them including your own agency, the Agriculture Department. Then it goes on down to a number of the others, and finally winds up with the Department of the Interior. Mr. LANE. That is correct, sir. Mr. DINGELL. All right. Mr. LANE. And we understand that. But we did not Mr. DINGELL. What do the guidelines of the Department of Agriculture state with regard to consultation with the Department of Interior? Mr. LANE. Consultation with the Department of Interior begins at the time that or even before we initiate planning in the watershed. And it goes through the planning process and it includes the report of the Fish and Wildlife, or Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr. DINGELL. Is this what your own Mr. LANE. This is part of the consultation that is involved that we consider to be involved in complying with that provision of the law. Mr. DINGELL. All right. I want you to submit to us the specific sections of the Department of Agriculture requirements which require this to be done. Mr. LANE. All right. Mr. DINGELL. You may do so at a time later. Mr. LANE. All right. (The information may be found in app. A, p. 265.) Mr. WILLIAMS. Chairman Dingell, may I make a comment? Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I remember this batch of work plans, they were pending in the Senate Public Works Committee. Mr. DINGELL. What dates are you referring to now? Mr. WILLIAMs. Well, I think I am going to have to stick to my recollection of this particular batch, because there was a batch in this category, and I just wanted to convey to you the circumstances. We arrived before the Senate Public Works Committee that day and had been led to believe that at that point in time environmental statements were not required, since the plans had been completed and approved by the Department prior to the passage of the act. Mr. DINGELL. Prior to the passage of the statute? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Are you sure of that? Mr. WILLIAMS. That's the way I recollect it. Mr. DINGELL. You had better check those dates, to be very sure. Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to. And I would also say if it is not the statute, it was prior to the receipt of the guidelines, because the statute says that the Council on Environmental Quality will prescribe the guidelines. Mr. DINGELL. No, the statute doesn't say that at all. The Council on Environmental Quality has prescribed guidelines, and has applied their guidelines. Not only are they right in so doing, but, as a matter of fact, also their guidelines, as near as I can figure, have been excellent. Mr. WILLIAMS. We all agree. Mr. DINGELL. Yes, and one of the things that they command you is filing 102 statements on actions that have significant effects on the environment. Mr. WILLIAMS. Right. Mr. DINGELL. And I observe that each and every one of these statements referred to by our good friend and colleague from Georgia have a significant effect on the environment, do they not? Mr. WILLIAMS. We would agree to that very definitely. It is a matter of time. Mr. DINGELL. No environmental impact statements have been filed since this rather hurried, cursory or interim, or whatever you call it, environmental impact statement was filed. Am I correct? Mr. WILLIAMS. If my memory serves me right, at the request of the Senate Committee that day, they said, "We want environmental statements, and we want them by a given hour and time." And we were responsive to that request, from the information that was available to us at that point in time. Mr. DINGELL. Well, there is an interesting item I note here. I think it is going to take a little bit of explaining. The report prepared by the Department of Interior projects that there would be a loss of wildlife and destruction of wildlife habitat due to flooding resulting from the impoundment of water. Now that is the Interior Department comment. Apparently they had no more time on this than did your agency. But-and I am quoting again from Mr. Blackburn's statement with regard to the Rocky Creek watershed, South Carolina: "The SCS section 102 report contains no reference to this objection." So Interior had time enough to make the comment on this point, but you either didn't get it, didn't choose to get it, didn't read it, weren't aware of it, had a breakdown in coordination or cooperation between your two agencies and you didn't mention the Interior Department's suggestion. Mr. WILLIAMS. I will have to examine the record. I only recall that these plans were involved during the transition. There was some doubt, honest, sincere doubt, as to whether such environmental statements were required at that time, because this was the first time we had been asked by the committee, for such statements and the discussion centered around do they pass them, or do they require the statements before passing them? Mr. DINGELL. Now let me make one thing clear to you, too. Now is there any doubt in your mind that legislative actions require 102 statements from the agencies? Mr. WILLIAMS. There is no doubt. Mr. DINGELL. No doubt. Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. Mr. DINGELL. So we are agreed that in the future, at least, insofar as this kind of project, you will find 102 statements in due form. Mr. WILLIAMS. We follow that procedure. Mr. DINGELL. Very good. What are you going to do with regard to Interior's comments? Where are Interior's comments going to be considered in the formation of your 102 statements? Mr. WILLIAMS. Dr. Byerly? Dr. BYERLY. Mr. Chairman, one question, sir. I believe our instructions are that when we report on the bill, and we make a negative response against the bill, that 102 (2) (C) statement is not required. Mr. DINGELL. Are not required? Dr. BYERLY. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. I don't challenge that particularly at this particular moment, but I would like to have you tell me where in the statute that direction Dr. BYERLY. Not in the statute. In the guidelines. Mr. DINGELL. Surely, we will go on, and then we will return to this. This was not one of my questions, but we got off into this other thing. Given the fact that you now are going to file 102 (2) (C) statements on legislative actions, at what point do Interior's comments get into the draft statement of the Department of Agriculture? Mr. WILLIAMS. At the time we prepare the statement that accompanies the work plan, in its regular course of distribution. Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now will the Interior Department's comments accompany the 102(2) (C) projects? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. That is the present practice. Mr. DINGELL. So that when the 102 (2) (C) statement of the Agriculture Department comes up on the SCS project, it will be accompanied by the Interior Department comments and recommendations under 102. Mr. WILLIAMS. Correct. That is true, going to CEQ. |