APPENDIXES (Appendixes 1-9 appear in part 1 of these hearings) APPENDIX 37.-COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY'S STREAM CHANNELIZATION STUDY PART A.-CORRESPONDENCE RE ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC., STUDY CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE, Mr. RUSSELL TRAIN, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, I. Washington, D.C., August 6, 1971. DEAR MR. TRAIN: Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter we sent to Assistant Secretary of the Interior Reed concerning the proposal of the State of Louisiana to build a road through the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. II. We understand that the Council has recently entered into a contract with Arthur D Little, Inc., to conduct a study on stream channel modification by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority and Soil Conservation Service. We also understand that Arthur D. Little, Inc., will provide to the CEQ a copy of its draft report for review about mid-November and that the final report is due at the end of November. We hope that you will make the draft report available to State agencies, to environmental and conservation organizations, and to this subcommittee at the same time it is given to CEQ for review and comment before it is finalized. The four agencies mentioned above and other Federal agencies have been asked to submit to CEQ a list of completed and proposed projects for analysis by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (a) Please provide to us a list of those projects submitted to CEQ by each agency. (b) Please provide to us a list of those projects selected for analysis by Arthur D. Little, Inc. Sincerely, HENRY S. REUSS, Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. GUY VANDER JAGT, Ranking Minority Member, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. (3451) EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Hon. HENRY S. REUSS, Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for inquiring about our stream channel modification study, I am enclosing two project lists for your use: (1) A composite list of all completed and proposed projects as submitted by the cooperating agencies. (2) A final field review list of the projects to be analyzed by Arthur D. Little, Inc. The purpose of this study is to examine a representative sample of channel modification projects-approximately 31 completed and 5 proposed-with a view to assessing their physical/hydrological effects, environmental effects, and economic costs and benefits. We expect the draft report of the Arthur D. Little findings in early fall and expect to circulate it as widely as possible for comment. We will keep your committee informed as to the progress. Again, my thanks for your interest and for the information copy of your letter to Mr. Reed. Sincerely, RUSSELL E. TRAIN, Chairman. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Hon. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, DEAR MR. TRAIN: We are deeply disturbed with the manner in which the Council on Environmental Quality's stream channel modification study by Arthur D. Little, Inc., is being conducted. There are a number of factors in Arthur D. Little's organization of this analysis and operating procedures for gathering relevant data which lead us and other conservation organizations to suspect that the results of this study will not be truly objective, but, in fact, will constitute a white wash of the environmental destruction caused by many channel modification projects. (a) Mr. Boyd Gibbons has stated that "noncontroversial" channel modification projects have been selected for review by Arthur D. Little research team. We submit that by avoiding "controversial" projects where groups are challenging stream modification because of the destruction this work will create, by studying those projects where there is no controversy, Arthur D. Little has biased the selection of evidence on which it will base its report and is already calling into serious question the objectivity of this future report. (b) Although six Federal agencies were invited to become involved in the study-Water Resources Council, Office of Management and Budget. Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, National Water Commission-the field trips by the Arthur D. Little research team are being scheduled and arranged by the very agencies whose projects are being studied. In Michigan, Arkansas, and Louisiana which were visited by the Arthur D. Little group August 9-13, officials of the Soil Conservation Service and Corps of Engineers were the group's official hosts, shepherding them throughout their itinerary. The credibility of Arthur D. Little's objectivity will be questioned if they gather evidence for their report in such an intimate fashion with the agencies being studied. Can we expect the Arthur D. Little team to return to these States for an itinerary arranged by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and a series of meetings at which the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife officials will be the hosts? (c) While the local corps and SCS offices have had plenty of time to prepare their "cases" since they are evidently making the arrangements for these Arthur D. Little field trips, the local offices of other Government agencies such as the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife who are critical of many of the channel modification practices have had very short notice of the group's arrival in a par ticular area. When the Arthur D. Little team went to Michigan, the regional Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife office located in Ohio was notified on Friday to prepare for the Arthur D. Little team 2-day survey which began the following Monday. We would expect that the CEQ would not tolerate such disparities in notice to the local offices which are responsible for supplying the Arthur D. Little team with channel modification data pertinent to this sudy if CEQ expects this report to be fair and objective. (d) It has been reported to us by representatives of private conservation groups that the Louisiana office of the Soil Conservation Service replied to inquiries about the Louisiana Arthur D. Little meetings; that these meetings were not public meetings, that only Federal agencies were to be involved-other parties were not welcome. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, State agencies that are vitally concerned with the environmental problems caused by channel modification, were not formally invited to participate in the Arthur D. Little study that took place in their State despite the fact that they have gathered considerable scientific data on the projects studied. In each case, it was only Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife's last minute notification of these State agencies that resulted in their sending any one to these Arthur D. Little local meetings. When representatives of these agencies arrived they found themselves relegated to the role of observers while the deliberations were made as to the work that had been or will be carried out in their State, work on which they have detailed opinions and for which they have statutory responsibility. Can we expect that these defects in operating policy will be corrected by the Arthur D. Little research team and that any imbalances in data input which have resulted from their activities to date will be reconciled by a return of the survey team to the watersheds reviewed in biased fashions for reappraisal with Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, State natural resource, and private environmental group personnel acting as hosts? Can we help to assure that future site meetings and visits of these Arthur D. Little research teams have the benefit of a balanced caucus by arranging for the attendance at these meetings of officials of State natural resource agencies and concerned private conservation groups? Sincerely, TOM BARLOW. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Mr. JOHN WILKINSON, DEAR JOHN: As a recapitulation of our meeting with the advisory group last Friday, I would like to summarize the major points which will need further attention. First, as soon as you have completed ten of the field evaluations you will transmit copies to the advisory group and us for confidential review. We will try to respond to these drafts as rapidly as possible. Second, it seems imperative that whenever possible, land use changes occasioned by channelizaton be documented. An example would be your description of the Taylor Creek project. Third, Gil White and Reds Wolman asked for a evaluation, and possibly a matrix, of the relationship between the 36 projects selected and the various criteria associated with stream channel modification work. Within this framework, each of the projects should be measured against the current controversies and issues related to channelization and should be identified as to location, i.e., upstream, project area, or downstream effects. In this way we can be in a position to see whether and to what extent each of the projects selected deals with the major issues raised in our outline and in the technical proposal. Fourth, some analysis of maintenance costs seems necessary to reflect the interaction of maintenance levels with channel stabilization and effectiveness. Fifth, flood plain development might be documented for a few of the projects, as suggested by Gil White. If you need assistance in obtaining the aerial photographs necessary for such an analysis, please let me know, as USDA has always offered to cooperate. Sixth, as a summarization, the following names have been brought forth as possible contacts for further general research information: Harry Cornell, Director of Inland Fisheries, Wildlife Resources Commis- Dr. Garland Pardue, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. In addition, I assume you will contact Garland Hershey, Director of OWRR, about their involvement with research projects on stream channel modification. Attached are the names of Forest Service personnel who, if not already contacted, could provide land use and related forest data. Because of the delay in beginning the field work and because we want you to have ample time in preparation of the report, the due date for the draft will be extended to December 31, 1971, with the final report on February 28, 1972. We are still considering the possibility of adding some additional projects for field analysis, pending receipt of Ruth Patrick's budget estimates and the recommendations from the State agencies and the National Resources Council. These additional projects would delay the report even more, but we can discuss this if and when that issue is resolved. Sincerely, BOYD H. GIBBONS III, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE, Washington, D.C., August 6, 1971. Mr. STEVE SLOAN, Executive Office of the President, DEAR MR. SLOAN: In Mr. Storey's absence I am providing you with additional information on Forest Service research offices which could provide technical background information relating to stream channel modification projects. For those projects in Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota, contacts should be made with: Mr. David B. King, director, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, Minn.-Phone: 612-645-0841. For projects in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, contacts should be made with: Dr. Warren T. Doolittle, director, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 6816 Market Street, Upper Darby, Pa.-Phone: 215-352-5425. For the projects in New Mexico, please have contacts made with : Dr. Karl F. Wenger, director, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 240 West Prospect Street, Fort Collins, Colo.-Phone: 303484-2211. If you need additional information on research contacts during the next 2 weeks, please don't hesitate to call me. My phone number is 557-0565. Sincerely, T. F. MCLINTOCK, Director, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1971. Mr. STEVE SLOAN, Executive Office of the President. DEAR MR. SLOAN: The person from Little making the field study of stream channel modification projects should contact the following: Dr. Robert L. Youngs, director, Southern Forest Experiment Station T10210 Federal Building, 701 Loyal Avenue, New Orleans, La.Phone: 504-527-6787. Mr. Joe F. Christopher (same address)-Phone: 504-527-6786. Mr. Christopher is in charge of our Forest Survey and can provide information on areas of vegetation types, changes, etc. Dr. Youngs can see that other appropriate members of the station are alerted and available. This will include the following scientists who are knowledgeable about the effects of varying water levels on timber growth in the southern coastal plain : Dr. Robert L. Johnson, Dr. Walter M. Broadfoot, Southern Hardwoods Laboratory, Post Office Box 227, Stoneville, Miss. In the Southeastern area the following should be visited: Dr. Stephen G. Boyce, director, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Post Office Building, P.O. Box 2570, Asheville, N.C.-Phone: 704-254-0657. Dr. Boyce is quite knowledgeable about the wetlands of the coastal area of the Carolinas and can also make arrangements for meetings with other scientists such as: Dr. Carol Wells, Forestry Science Laboratory, P.O. Box 12254, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Mr. Cortland Young, Mr. Jack Stubbs, Meeting Street, Room 620, Federal Building, Charleston, S.C. Further contracts for these visits should be made directly with the two directors. HERBERT C. STOREY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Mr. M. W. SILBER, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Mass. DEAR MR. SILBER: I am writing to clarify a question that has arisen concerning the payment provisions of modification No. 2 to contract No. CCEQ-6-71 between the United States of America, acting through the Council on Environmental Quality, and Arthur D. Little, Inc. In your letter to Mr. Gibbons of November 29, 1971, you expressed concern that the provisions of modification No. 2 do not permit the payment of a fixed fee as part of the additional estimated cost of $35,000. The language of modification No. 2 (in the first proviso of clause 201) was intended to insure that the total cost to the Government of the modification would not exceed $35,000. It was understood by the staff of the Council that the entire $35,000 was intended to be applied to costs other than fixed fee. However, we would have no objection to the apportionment of that amount between costs and fixed fee in the same proportion as in the original contract dated June 30, 1971. It is understood that the total cost to the Government on account of modification No. 2, including fixed fee, will in no event exceed $35,000. If this clarification of modification No. 2 is agreeable to you, please sign and return a copy of this letter. DEAR JOHN: We have now reviewed the first 20 preliminary project reports submitted. I offer the following comments in order to assist in your further work on the forthcoming reports as well as in the redrafting of the ones you have sent us. With regard to our specific comments on the individual project paper, I have asked Steve Sloan to set up a meeting with you in the near future to cover these in more detail. |