This is one of the few times in history that EPA has rated a project "environmentally unsatisfactory." It is the first time in history that EPA has rated a project "environmentally unsatisfactory" and the Secretary of the Interior has written to the Secretary of Agriculture to advise him of Interior's opposition. Our review of the Starkweather project convinces us that it fully deserves these failing marks. We feel therefore that if the SCS gives any weight to environmental factors and project alternatives revealed in the NEAP review, it will abandon the Starkweather project as planned.

2. The Garrison diversion project of the Bureau of Reclamation will divert waters from the Missouri River in west-central North Dakota to areas in central and eastern North Dakota. Water will be carried through a system of manmade canals and laterals, approximately 18,000 miles in length and existing rivers, some of which will be channelized. Resolutions of opposition to the once sacrosanct Garrison project were recently passed at State conventions of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, the North Dakota Farmers Union, and the North Dakota National Farmers Organization despite the fact that approximately 80 percent of the project benefits are allocated to irrigation. This unlikely opposition is of little wonder now that the facts about Garrison are emerging: large scale waterfowl and wetland losses; project costs likely to total $500 million; subsidies of approximately $2,000 per irrigated acre; a realistic benefit/cost ratio of less than one to one; expenditure of approximately $20 million to “restore" a lake which has already been restored naturally, and other multimillion-dollar projects as a likely consequence.

One of the likely adverse consequences of Garrison's canals and channelized streams and rivers is the drainage of more than 41,000 acres of important waterfowl wetlands. Another is that they will cause more water pollution and enable carp and other rough fish to gain access to large bodies of presently carpfree waters. Through competition and predation, these rough fish will replace valuable indigenous fish.

3. Corps of Engineers channelization projects are among the most destructive in the Nation because of their size and because they contain only token observance of conservation laws and principles. Corps channelization of the Cache River in Arkansas (231 miles), the Obion/Forked Deer Rivers in Tennessee (over 200 miles) are fair illustrations; here Federal courts have examined the Corps' response to NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and found it totally wanting. EDF v. Froehlke, - F. 2d 4 E.R.C. 1829 (8th Cir. 1972) (Cache); Akers v. Resor, 3 E.R.C. 1979 (W.D. Tenn. 1972) (Obion/Forked Deer). The Trinity River project in Texas is even another example. Sierra Club v. Froehlke, Civ. No. 71-H-983 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 16, 1973). In sum, the courts, not just conservationists, have found:

F. Supp.

a. The Corps does not consider integrated channelization projects as a whole; it will attempt to break them into components and to disregard their impacts separately. Sierra Club v. Froehlke.

b. The Corps does not provide mitigation concurrently with channelization. It does not, as a rule, apply for mitigation authorization in the first place. This is of course what happened in the Cache and Obion projects. It continues to happen today-as in the lower Atchafalaya River navigation project, 30 miles through Louisiana's coastal zone, covering 7,000 acres with spoil and another 3.000 acres every 3 years for the next 50 years. There is no mitigation plan. When the Corps does apply for mitigation authorization, it will not apply for mitigation appropriations concurrently with construction. The result is build now, mitigate later, usually after suitable mitigation lands have been cleared for development. Akers v. Resor, EDF v. Froehlke. Another side effect is that once the Corps has begun construction there is great pressure on the affected State to accept anything the Corps offers. The State has the choice of accepting too little now, or maybe nothing later.

c. When it does consider mitigation, the corps uses the most minimal values possible for the recreation uses which must be compensated. It considers only hunting and fishing uses, and only present-day uses at that. EDF v. Froehlke. On the other hand, when the corps is looking for recreation "benefits" to justify a project, it looks as far into the future as it dares and includes every conceivable form of recreation.

d. The corps' environmental review of projects rarely includes conservation losses as project costs. This is true in large part because there is no attempt to quantify environmental losses and put them into a meaningful balance against

94-075 (Pt. 6) O 73 - 2

hard cash development "benefits." The corps environmental statements contain lists of wildlife species in the project area. It is wildlife words against development money-and the words get lost in the decisionmaking process.

It is easy, unfortunately, to document the corps' failure to comply wth conservation laws in channelization projects. It is more difficult to propose solutions--because channelization inevitably means development in the flood plain, and this means money to developers and work for the channelizers. The work is virtually endless, for channelization does not stop floods; it just moves them downstream. No amount of "environmental" laws can reverse the cycle of development-channelization-development. Even legitimate flood control projects, such as the upper Atchafalaya flood control project in Louisiana which guards New Orleans, become affected by this pressure and we see channelization and development-communities and churches-springing up inside the very floodway which Congress authorized to carry floodwaters.

Reducing harmful channelization and mitigating its adverse effects can be accomplished by enforcing certain existing laws and enacting new ones. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is an existing law that if effectively implemented could have a great deal of impact on harmful channelization. NEPA, however, has not been adequately implemented by the waters resource development agencies.

SCS IMPLEMENTATION OF NEPA

The SCS implementation of NEPA is a case in point. The SCS has made some improvements in its NEPA procedure since the 1971 channelization hearings. SCS regulations now require an environmental impact statement for all watershed plans for which the work plan agreement was signed after January 1, 1970. Also SCS regulations require environmental impact statements for all projects with channel improvements which were classified in a group other than "minor or no known adverse effect" in the review under Watershed Memorandum 108 and which do not have the requisite mitigation. We feel, however, that important defects remain in the SCS. NEPA process, the most important of which are failure to prepare enivronmental impact statements on all appropriate projects, serious deficiencies in the statements prepared, and failure to include environmental considerations in decisionmaking.

1. Environmental impact statements are not prepared on all appropriate projects because many channelization projects were not even classified under the 108 review. Also, the 108 criteria of "no known adverse effect" for projects approved before 1970 is too narrow. NEPA requires statements for all major Federal actions "significantly" affecting the quality of the human environment. If the environmental impact is significant, it is through preparing an environmental impact statement and considering and responding to comments that the question of adverse impact must be determined.

2. Preparation of woefully inadequate environmental impact statements is another significant deficiency in the SCS-NEPA procedure. In NRDC v. Grant, a case in which the NWF participated as a plaintiff, the court found that the final environmental impact statement for the Chicod Creek watershed project failed to meet the requirements of NEPA. In a report on "Adequacy of Selected Environmental Impact Statements," issued on November 27, 1972, the General Accounting Office ("GAO") discussed significant deficiencies in the SCS final environmental impact statement on the East Fork of the Whitewater River watershed project. Serious inadequacies in the draft environmental impact statement for the Starkweather watershed project were noted in joint comments submitted by the NWF and other conservation organizations, as well as comments submitted by Interior and EPA.

These and other evaluations by our staff reveal important deficiencies in SCS environmental impact statements. Adverse environmental impact is misrepresented because the statements omit serious environmental effects both within and outside the project area. Favorable environmental impact is claimed for measures that only mitigate adverse impact and when favorable impact could have occurred without the project. The statements also fail to list important and obvious alternatives. The ones that are listed are discussed only superficially and not considered in coordination with each other and the project. Often there is no discussion of the environmental impacts of the alternatives. The relationship between long- and short-term uses of the environment are inadequately treated, particularly because the overall, cumulative impacts of the proposed action on affected environmental resources is not considered.

Examples of these types of defects include:

a. Misrepresentation of Adverse Impacts

The draft environmental impact statement for the Starkweather project names as an adverse environmental effect the potential for local interests extending project measures to drain about 4,000 unprotected acres of types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands. The work plan and the draft environmental impact statement reveal however that the location of the Starkweather channels and their capacity would permit local interests to drain 24,000 acres of unprotected types 3 and 4 wetlands in the Edmore subwatershed, which is immediately adjacent to Starkweather and part of the same natural drainage basin. This environmental impact, much larger than that in the designated Starkweather area, is not even mentioned in the statement.

In the Chicod case, the court cited a number of instances in which the SCS final environmental impact statement misrepresented adverse environmental effects. While disclosing the fact of increases in sediment load, the statement contains no discussion of its downstream effects. The statement merely concludes without supportive scientific data and opinion that "No significant reduction in quality of waters * * * is expected." Of this the court states "credible evidence suggests the opposite conclusion." The court also criticized the SCS for not even mentioning eutrophication in the final statement even though it is already a serious problem in numerous rivers in the area.

b. Misrepresentation of Favorable Environmental Impact

The Starkweather draft environmental impact statement names as a favorable environmental impact the preservation of the "equivalent" of 75 percent of the 18,400 acres of existing wetlands (or 13,500 acres) in the Starkweather subwatershed. In their comments, Interior calls this claim misleading and confusing. They note that "Actually only 8,558 acres of such wetlands have been secured by the B.S.F. & W. and sponsors ** *" They further note that this leaves 10.000 acres of types 3 and 4 wetlands susceptible to drainage in Starkweather. Other likely drainage losses cited by Interior include 24,000 acres of types 3 and 4 wetlands in the adjacent Edmore subwatershed, 10,000 acres of type 1 wetlands in both subwatersheds and about 15,000 acres of type 5 wetlands. The project's impact on wetlands therefore will be the likely loss of nearly 60,000 wetland acres, not the preservation of 13,500. Interior also states that the Federal wetlands purchases cannot be considered as a favorable environmental impact of this project since the ongoing small wetlands program was authorized, funded, and operated without any connection to the Starkweather project.

c. Failure to Name and Discuss Alternatives

About one-half page is devoted to alternatives in the Starkweather draft environmental impact statement. Not even mentioned as alternatives are numerous programs within the Department of Agriculture including flood insurance, retirement of affected areas under set-aside or water bank programs, and other agricultural uses of affected areas such as growing forage or as pasture land.

In the Chicod case the court notes that several important reasonable alternatives are not discussed at all in the final environmental impact statement. "The recommendation of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife that 7 miles of channelization be deleted from the most productive portion of the Chicod ecosys tem is not discussed as an alternative to the Project." Deferral, a particularly appropriate alternative, is not discussed; nor is the recommendation of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources. The court concludes, "Alternatives are discussed only superficially, and nowhere are the environmental impacts of the alternatives discussed."

The GAO criticized the final environmental impact statement in the East Fork project for only listing several single-purpose alternatives although the proposed project itself is a multiple-purpose development. The first three alternatives were in fact rejected primarily because they could not meet the multiple objectives of the proposed project. Another criticism made by the GAO was that the impact statement did not present any information on the environmental impacts of the listed alternatives.

d. Failure to Adequately Discuss the Relationship Between Long- and Short-Term Uses of the Environment

In the Chicod case the court cited as a deficiency in the final environmental impact statement the failure to consider fully the cumulative impact of the Chicod and other channelization projects on the environmental and economic

resources of eastern North Carolina. In particular the court noted that there was no discussion of the cumulative effects of increased sedimentation, accumulation of nutrients and the impact of drainage projects upon hardwood timber or ground water resources.

To improve the quality of SCS's environmental impact statements, the NWF recommends the following changes:

a. Adverse Environmental Impact.-The statements should include all of the project's adverse environmental impact including the impact which will occur outside the designated project area. The statements should disclose adverse water quality impacts. These impacts should be discussed more extensively and documented with scientific data and research rather than conclusionary statements.

b. Favorable Impact.-The statements should not include as favorable impact beneficial measures that could have been taken without the project. Nor should the statements include as favorable impact preserving natural resources that would not be lost or endangered without the installation of the project.

c. Alternatives.-The statements should contain a comprehensive list of alternatives and consider various single-purpose measures in coordination with each other. Too frequently single-purpose alternatives are treated separately and rejected summarily because they do not accomplish multipurpose objectives.

The statements should provide information on the environmental impacts of the various alternatives and should compute the benefit/cost ratios for the various alternatives. Without quantifying the pros and cons of alternatives and computing benefit/cost ratios, it is difficult to compare them to the proposed project and each other.

d. Relationship Between Long and Short Term Uses of the Environment.— The statements should discuss the national priority of the environmental resources at stake versus the priority of the expected benefits. When benefits include the production of surplus crops, that fact should be disclosed and the various additional costs that will be incurred by the Federal Government for the surplus crop program should be calculated and included in a revised benefitcost ratio.

The statements should name and discuss other Federal, State, and local programs that will also affect the environmental resources at stake in the project. Special emphasis should be given to other Department of Agriculture programs. e. Ultimate NEPA Responsibility. The ultimate responsibility for preparing environmental impact statements and determining whether changes are warranted in light of the NEPA review should be at the national level of SCS rather than at the State or regional level at which the commitments to the project as planned are stronger.

3. The most significant shortcoming in the SCS's implementation of NEPA is its failure to abide by the law's requirement that to the fullest extent possible the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States be interpreted and administered in accordance with the environmental policies enumerated in the act. This provision of NEPA and others require full consideration of environmental factors revealed through the NEPA review in agency decisionmaking. As far as we know, however, neither the SCS or any other water resource development agency has eliminated any channelization as a result of the NEPA review process. Channelization goes on. When Mr. Grant testified before you on June 3. 1971, he stated that approved watershed projects call for 19.600 miles of channel improvement and just over 6,000 miles of this work had been done. A recent SCS memorandum shows that as of March 31, 1972, a total of 21.106 miles of channel modification work are contained in approved projects and 7,729 miles have been constructed. In other words, in less than a year's time after the channelization hearings, the SCS installed 1,724 miles of channels and had more than 1,506 miles approved.

NEW LAWS AND NEW GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES ARE NEEDED TO REDUCE HARMFUL CHANNELIZATION AND MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Expensive corps, TVA. Bureau of Reclamation, and SCS projects provide large subsidies for channelization. Now that it has become clear that much channelization damages or destroys vital natural resources, is unjustified economically, and that project objectives can be accomplished by alternative methods, it makes sense to reverse Government policy on channelization and provide incentives and subsidies to encourage use of alternative measures. Also it makes sense to require that channelization projects mitigate adverse impact so that they fully bear the

costs of channelization. To accomplish these objectives the National Wildlife Federation makes the following suggestions:

1. We recommend that either Congress amend the Watershed Protection Act to require full mitigation or that a subcommittee of Congress responsible for authorizing or appropriating for SCS watershed projects instruct the SCS to make such mitigation. Section 108.05 of the SCS Watershed Manual requires that fish and wildlife losses be mitigated to the maximum practicable degree. The SCS implements this provision narrowly by only mitigating for areas physically destroyed by project measures. Not considered as appropriate for mitigation are wetlands on and off the project area that will inevitably be drained by private ditches into SCS channels.

2. We recommend that Congress amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to make it fully applicable to the SCS. Important amendments to this Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act made in 1958 contained a related section that amended the Watershed Protection Act. That provision, 16 U.S.C. section 1008, however, has not been interpreted by the SCS to allow it to purchase lands for mitigation or require that the recommendations on wildlife measures of the Secretary of the Interior be incorporated into watershed work plans.

3. We also recommend that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act be amended to require consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior. Further, the act should be amended to direct EPA to prepare reports and recommendations on the water quality aspects of water resource development projects.

4. In addition, we recommend that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act be amended to provide that no agency of the U.S. Government shall be allowed to participate in the channelization of any stream or river where, pursuant to the review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or EPA, it is determined that such project, considered alone or in combination with other similar projects in the affected area, would have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife resources or water quality, provided that the agency could proceed with the project if subsequent to the determination of adverse effect by the Fish and Wildlife Service or EPA, the agency finds on the basis of a record produced at a public hearing that such project is essential to protect the public health and safety. We feel that this amendment would give recognition to the adverse effects that many channelization projects have on fish and wildlife habitat and water quality and assign appropriate roles to the Federal agencies with expertise in and responsibility for these

areas.

5. We also recommend procedural changes in congressional consideration of channelization projects of the corps, Bureau of Reclamation, TVA, and SCS. First, TVA projects should require congressional authorization as do corps and Bureau of Reclamation on projects. SCS projects should be authorized by the full Congress rather than congressional committees. Committees of Congress that authorize these projects should give notice of their hearings on specific projects here in Washington and in the affected areas sufficiently in advance of the hearings to allow for meaningful public contribution to the decisions. We feel that these committees do not now receive information on how destructive some of these projects are and how dubiously, as a matter of pure economics, many have been justified to the committees. Another suggestion is that the committees receive and consider before decisionmaking all the information developed in the NEPA process. The committees currently authorize many projects for which only an impact statement has been prepared. Under this procedure the committee authorizes projects before receiving and considering the detailed comments of other agencies and conservation organizations or the agencies' response to these comments.

6. We also urge that the agencies be required by the Public Works, Interior, and Agriculture Committees to include mitigation, and specifically land acquisition to offset estuarine and wildlife losses, in their legislative proposals. Notwithstanding their duty by law to mitigate, these agencies continue to submit project after project without mention of mitigation. Even when mitigation is sought by the agency and authorized by Congress, appropriations for it often seem delayed or forgotten entirely. We believe that funds for mitigation of losses must be appropriated right along with the money for development.

7. The "set-aside programs" administered by the Department of Agriculture should be restructured so that they mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of channelization. The current "set-aside program" which will expire after the 1973 crop year, provides substantial governmental payments without making