such as urbanization, changes in water features and characteristics, etc. Discuss impact upon the economy and soial conditions and identify environmental elements which may be modified or lost. Such impacts shall be detailed in a dispassionate manner to provide a basis for a meaningful treatment of the trade-offs involved. Quantitative estimates of losses or gains (e.g. acres of marshland, number of ducks nesting or harvested) will be set forth whenever practicable. Discuss both the beneficial and detrimental impacts of the environmental changes or conversions placing some relative value on the impacts described. Discuss these effects not only with reference to the project area, but in relation to any applicable region, basin, watershed, or ecosystem. Relate the impact to the river basin or regional entity in which the action is proposed; and discuss the interrelationship of projects and alternatives proposed, under construction, or in operation by other agencies or organizations. A thoughtful assessment of the environmental elements should aid in determining impacts. For example, the filling of a portion of the wetlands of an estuary would involve the obvious conversion of aquatic/ marsh areas to terrestrial environments, the loss of wetland habitats and associated organisms, a gain in area for terrestrial organisms, a change in the nutrient regime of the runoff water entering that portion of the estuary, alteration of the hydrology of some given area, perhaps the introduction of buildings or roads, curtailment of certain commercial uses, disruption of water-based recreational pursuits, conversion of wildland aesthetics to less-pristine attributes, perhaps the removal of some portion of popular duck hunting grounds or unique bird nesting area, etc. (2) Discuss both the beneficial and detrimental aspects of the environmental changes or conversions placing some relative value on the impacts described. A distinction should be observed here, whereby the impacts (changes) were initially detailed without making value judgments while at this point are discussed in terms of their effects (who or what is affected by the changes). Identify the recipient (environmental element, interest group, industry, agency) of these effects and the nature and extent of the impacts on them. Discuss these effects not only with reference to the project area, but in relation to any applicable region, basin, watershed, or ecosystem. In the example given, the loss of wetland might have relevance to different areas depending on the uniqueness of the filled area, the development plans and state of adjacent and regional wetlands, and the extent of the secondary effects of the filling (alteration of estuarine salinity wedge, sedimentation effects on adjacent shellfish, the modification of the surficial and groundwater hydrology of contiguous marsh and upland areas, etc.). (3) Identify remedial, protective, and mitigation measures which would be taken as a part of the proposed action by the Corps or others, to eliminate, or compensate for any detrimental aspects of the proposed action. Such measures taken for the minor or short-lived negative aspects of the project will be discussed in this section. The adverse effects which cannot be satisfactorily dealt with will be considered in greater detail along with their abatement and mitigation measures in the following section. d. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Discuss only those detrimental aspects of the proposed action which cannot be eliminated either within the framework of responsibility of those agencies or groups who identified the problem, or by alternative measures as a part of the proposed action. The discussion will identify the nature and extent of the adverse effects and the parties affected. It should include a discussion of adverse effects or objections raised by others. The loss of a given acreage of wetland by filling may be mitigated by purchase of a comparable land area, but this does not eliminate the adverse effect. Certainly the effects on the altered elements will not disappear simply because additional land is purchased. Identify the nature and extent of the principal adverse effects and the parties affected. For example, the effects of the filled wetland might include the loss of shellfish through sedimentation actions (turbidity and burial), the loss of organisms through the leaching of toxic substances from polluted marsh sediments used in the fill, the loss of a popular/valuable waterfowl census site in the estuary or the burial of ancient Indian midden sites of indeterminate archeological value. Present and comment on the objections of all concerned parties. e. Alternatives to the proposed action. Describe the various alternatives considered, their general environmental impact, and the reason (s) why each was not recommended. Identify alternatives as to their beneficial and detrimental effects on the environmental elements, specifically taking into account the alter ative of no action. This latter alternative requires a projection of the future environmental setting if the project is not accomplished (includes both natural and man-induced changes). Discuss economically justified alternatives predicated upon standard evaluation methods, but additionally, insofar as possible, identify and evaluate other ways of providing functions similar to those provided by the proposed project but which were specifically formulated with environmental quality objectives in mind. For example, the environmental trade-offs involved in filling the marsh would be different for alternatives such as: utilizing an inland site rather than filling in the marsh, hauling fill material from an upland borrow pit rather than dredging it from the estuary, or providing construction on piles or floats rather than on fill material. Discuss other possible solutions which may be outside Corps authorities. f. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. Assess the cumulative and long-term impacts of the proposed action with the view that each generation is a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. Give special attention to considerations that would narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks to health or safety. The propriety of any action should be weighed against the potential for damage to man's life support system-the biosphere thereby guarding against the short-sighted foreclosure of future options or needs. It is appropriate to make such evaluations on landuse patterns and development, alterations in the organic productivity of biological communities and ecosystems and modifications in the proportions of environmental components (water, uplands, wetland, vegetation, fauna) for a region or ecosystem. For example, if a coastal marsh is extensively filled, the ability of an associated estuary to support its normal biota might be seriously impaired. Altered sediment, nutrient, and biocide additions to the waters might well affect the inherent biological productivity of the estuary. In other words, if the estuary's marshes are modified enough to affect basic estuarine processes, certain of the amenities, biota, products, industry, and recreation opportunities could be lost. The long-term implications of these changes are directly related to the degree that the losses are sizeable or unique. g. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Discuss irrevocable uses of resources, changes in land use, destruction of archeological or historical sites, unalterable disruptions in the ecosystems, and other effects that would curtail the diversity and range of beneficial uses of the environment should the proposal be implemented. For example, in filling a marsh there could be a number of potential irreversible or irretrievable effects. The particular aquatic habitat filled in the marsh would be permanently lost for aquatic organisms and fill would be removed from one area and deposited in another. Include possible indirect actions-those made economically feasible, as a result of the proposed action-that would cause changes in land and water use could not be halted or reversed under free enterprise principles. h. Coordination with others. The coordinations and public participation efforts will be summarized in this section under three subheadings: Public participation, Government agencies, and Citizen Groups. (1) Public participation. This section will briefly summarize the public participation efforts accomplished during the conduct of the study, indicating number of public meetings, informal meetings and workshops conducted, and a brief discussion of environmental issues identified, if any. For an authorized project or other administrative action, discuss measures taken to involve or inform the public of the actions and the environmental issues. (2) Government agencies. Each government agency with whom coordination of the environmental statement has been accomplished will be listed. Relevant and approppriate comments will be included in the revised statements incorporating changes where necessary. Additionally, each separate view expressed concerning the environmental effects of the proposal will be summarized in a comment and appropriately discussed in a response. If an agency did not provide comments on the statement, "No comments received" will be placed under the agency name. (3) Citizen groups. The objective of this section is to clearly set forth the magnitude and breadth of concerns of private citizens and conservation groups regarding specific identifiable environmental impacts related to the project. The environmental issues or impacts identified by citizens and conservation groups will be incorporated in the statement where appropriate. All views expressed, concerning the environmental effects of the proposal will be set forth in a comment and appropriately discussed in a response, as are those from government agencies. To give appropriate coverage and avoid duplication of response to the same environmental concern, District Engineers may consolidate or combine the environmental issues raised into appropriate groupings. Source of the comments should be clearly identified. (4) Copies of all correspondence from governmental agencies, citizens and conservation interests received concerning the proposal will be attached to the statement. (5) The reporting officer will make every effort to reconcile areas of discrepancy or disagreement, where comments or reviewing agencies pose significant objection to or recommend modification of the statement. Where agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable period of time, subsequent to receipt of comments, the comments will be discussed (in (2) and (3) above) and a subsection entitled "Unreconciled Conflicts" will be added to this section of the statement. This subsection will contain a brief, but complete and thorough discussion of the problem (s). The discussion will be a concise and objective analysis of the environmental issues, presenting both sides of the issue. APPENDIX D The following are samples of the format for cover and summary sheets to be followed in preparing environmental statements. Pages D-2 and D-3 are for a draft statement, pages D-4 and D-5 are for a final statement, and pages D-6 through D-8 show format for the section on "Coordination with others." Samples of final environmental statements, selected to give a broad exposure to the many and varied problems and conditions, will be made available to field offices. These should be used to build a working reference in each office. Fort Myers Beach Channel, Fla. (X) Draft. () Final Environmental Statement. Responsible office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, Fla. 1. Name of action: (X) Administrative. ( ) Legislative. 2. Description of action: This is a channel extension 11 feet by 125 feet by 2,000 feet with a turning basin. Dredged material will be used as beach nourishment. Located in Lee County, Fla. 3. a. Environmental impacts: Dredging of 40,000 cubic yards of material used as beach nourishment on Estero Island, increased channel and turning basin will decrease chances of vessel damage by collision or grounding. b. Adverse environmental effects: Loss of 7 acres of bottom biota and temporary turbidity during construction. 4. Alternatives: “No-development." 5. Comments requested: Florida Department of Natural Resources. Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control. U.S. Department of Transportation. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI. Florida Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Environmental Protection Agency. 6. Draft statement to CEQ. South Ellenville Rondout Creek Basin, N.Y () Draft. (X) Final Environmental Statement. Responsible office: U.S. Army Engineer District, New York, N.Y. 1. Name of actions: (X) Administrative. ( ) Legislative. 2. Description of action: Flood control protection project consisting of a system of levees, concrete chute, stilling basin, debris barrier, floodwalls and transition walls, bridge replacements, and associated interior drainage facilities in Ulster County, N.Y. 3. a. Environmental impacts: Provide flood proofing of unprotected flood plains; accelerate development of flood plain; loss of natural stream section and natural vegetation, and loss of recharging underground aquifiers. b. Adverse environmental effects: Concrete chute will replace natural stream and act as barrier to restrict circulation and may diminish water for recharging underground aquifers. 4. Alternatives: Reservoir control; stream diversion; and "no-development.” 5. Comments received: Water Quality Office, EPA. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Village of Ellenville, N.Y. Bureau of Water Hygiene, EPA. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI. County of Ulster, N.Y. Town of Warasing, N.Y. 6. Draft statement to CEQ Final statement to CEQ 8. Coordination with others-a. Public participation. Two public meetings were held on this project. This first on September 1, 1969, for the initiation of the study and the second on February 23, 1971, to discuss the proposed plan. The environmental aspects of the proposed plan were thoroughly discussed. News releases were issued concerning the public meetings and that the draft environmental statement had been prepared and was available from the District Engineer. b. Government agencies. The draft environmental statement was sent to the following governmental agencies requesting their views and comments. Their comments are summarized below and copies of the replies attached to the environmental statement. (1) Water Quality Office, USEPA. Comment: No comments to offer in connection with the project. (2) Bureau of Water Hygiene, USEPA. Comment: Concurred with the project and the Environmental Statement since the health aspects of recreation are not a factor nor are any water supply facilities involved with the project. Comment: Requested that the phrase: "bearing little value scenically" be excluded from the statement: Response: The comment was considered valid and the phrase was eliminated from the present statement. (3) Soil Conservation Service, USDA. Comment: No comments to offer in connection with the project. (4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI. Comment: Project will have no adverse effects upon fish and wildlife and it offers no opportunity to benefit these resources. Response: The comment was considered valid and incorporated into the present statement. Comment: The "no-development" alternative fails to deal squarely with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Response: It is believed that the method selected would best lend itself to the mountainous terrain and other topographic and geologic characteristics of the area from a design point of view and still accomplish the purpose of the project with the least environmental disruption. As indicated in the statement, the plan of improvement would provide for beautification measures to enhance the scenic attractiveness of the area and would also improve the economic conditions of landowners, both necessary to an improved environmental condition. On the other hand, a "no-development" alternative would allow periodic flooding to continue, and as previously experienced, would cause extensive damage to the surrounding lands which would adversely affect the environment, and may also result in environmental losses equivalent to about $250,000 annually during the life of the project. On this basis, it appears that project implementation of the plan selected would be a more favorable course of action than the selection of a "no-development" alternative. (5) Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State. Comment: The project will be a desirable addition to the area as it now exists. Comment: Statement should make reference to construction precautions which are normally undertaken to minimize surficial disturbance and consequent erosion. Response: The comment was considered valid and was incorporated into the present statement. Comment: The phrase: "bearing little value scenically" is subjective. Response: Concur in this comment, and the phrase was eliminated from the present statement. Comment: A section of natural stream will be destroyed; natural vegetation bordering this section will be removed; and a concrete chute will prevent infiltration in the vicinity of Route 52 bridge. Response: The additional environmental impacts, regarding the replacement of a portion of the natural stream with a concrete chute and the removal of natural vegetation, and the effect of the proposed chute on the existing infiltration process have been incorporated into the present statement. Comment: Alternatives considered should be described; environmental losses due to a "no-development" alternative have not been identified; and an alternative with only environmental objectives has not been included. Response: A more detai.ed explanation of the alternatives considered for the project has been included in the statement. With regard to the comment on the environmental losses that may result from a "no-development" alternative, nonimplementation of the project would allow periodic flooding to continue that could cause damages to the surrounding areas, such as loss of trees, vegetation, top soil, etc., and possible loss to human life, with a resultant unfavorable effect on the environment. The estimate of a $250,000 annual loss noted in the statement represents the annual loss to local interests if flood control measures are not instituted and was based on the annual benefits that would accrue if the project is implemented. The estimated benefits were derived by computing the actual flood damages suffered by the area residents from the largest flood of record in conjunction with data developed from hydraulic and hydrologic studies. Actual flood damage losses were gathered from personal interviews with the local inhabitants during field investigations. An alternative with only environmental objectives in mind was incorporated into the present statement. Comment: There is also an irreversible commitment of about one-half mile of natural stream and an irretrievable commitment of the remainder of the undeveloped flood path. Response: The irreversible commitment attributed to the replacement of a portion of the natural stream and on irretrievable commitment of the remainder of the undeveloped flood plan are reflected in the present statement. Comment: The statement does not objectively evaluate environmental impact. Response: The present statement has been revised to contain additional environmental impacts that would result from project implementation. (6) County of Ulster, N.Y. Comment: Concurred with the draft statement and the project, and noted that implementation of the project would greatly enhance and beautify the village of Ellenville and the Shawangunk Valley, and will help bring more sportsmen and tourists into the area. (7) Village of Ellenville, N.Y. Comment: Concurred with the draft statement and the project. (8) Town of Wawarsing, N.Y. Comment: Concurred with the draft statement and the project. c. Citizen groups. There is no known environmental conflicts or issues raised by citizen or conservation groups. (NOTE: This section will treat the concerns of citizen, conservation, and environmental groups in the same manner as those in the preceding section under Government agencies. Copies of all correspondence received will be attached to the statement. For further guidance see Appendix C.) For the Adjutant General. R. B. BELNAP, Special Advisor to TAG. [FR Doc. 71-3116 Filed 6-10-71; 8:45 A.M.] 68176 0-71-41 |