PURCHASING COPIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS* 1. A copy of any draft or final environmental statement prepared by a Federal agency can be obtained by sending order number, payment, and return address to the National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22151. 2. Order numbers are found at the end of the summary of each statement in the 102 Monitor which is published by the Council on Environmental Quality (722 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006) and sent to State clearinghouses and other interested agencies. 3. Payment is normally $3.00. Copies over 300 pages require $6.00 and will be noted in the 102 Monitor. AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. WRIGHT. The subcommittee will be in order. We are grateful to Gen. Frank P. Koisch for his considerate attitude toward the committee. We have consumed nearly his entire day. We appreciate your cooperative attitude, General Koisch. As always, you are enlightening and helpful to this committee, and we are grateful that you can be with us today. I observe that you have a prepared statement. Do you expect to follow this and then subject yourself to questions? It is not really very long. General KOISCH. I can summarize that further for you, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Very well. Well, let us go through the formality of the oath. You are accompanied by General KOISCH. Mr. Irwin Reisler, acting chief, Planning Division. Mr. WRIGHT. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God. TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL FRANK P. KOISCH, DIRECTOR, CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY IRWIN REISLER, ACTING CHIEF, PLANNING DIVISION General KoISCH. I do. Mr. REISLER. I do. Mr. WRIGHT. Let us make the statement, as prepared, a part of the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL FRANK P. KOISCH, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear here today to participate in your investigation of administrative procedures pertaining to Federal programs under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Public Works. The overall process which is initiated when a water resources study authority is first granted to the Corps of Engineers to investigate problems in a single locality or in a broad region of the country, and which ultimately results in the authorization and construction of water resources projects to solve the problems that have been identified, is indeed a lengthy one. It is reflective of the continuous increase in the complexities of conducting our activities in the complicated society in which we live. Try as we have to improve the quality of our reports and the efficiency by which they are produced, there is little evidence to show that the process time can be materially shortened or that major water resources projects, once authorized, can be put in operation much sooner than now being experienced in the conduct of our program. As you may recall, in 1966 the Chief of Engineers submitted to the Committee of Public Works of the House of Representatives a report of our survey report procedures which included a detailed analysis of the time elapsed in the study and authorization process for 115 reports which were acted upon in the 1965 Omnibus Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Acts. That study showed that the average time from study authorization to project authorization was 10 years and 8 months. This time period broke down roughly as follows: a. Awaiting funding for initiation of studies____. b. Corps of Engineers investigations, review, coordination and processing- c. OMB & Secretary of the Army review and processing and action by Congress- Total 4 years and 9 months 4 years and 10 months 1 year and 1 month 10 years and 8 months In the interest of up-dating these figures, we have made a similar review of the projects that were authorized in 1970. The average period did not change materially from the results obtained from the earlier study-10 years and 11 months as compared with 10 years and 8 months-yet during this intervening period new legislative requirements have added to the complexity of our studies and to coordination requirements. Looking beyond the authorization process, substantial additional time is required for advanced engineering and design and ultimately project construction. Allowing for the funding process and the necessary engineering and construction activities, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the elapsed period between study authorization and completion of project construction may be as much as 15 to 20 years on the average, depending on the scope of the project and the urgency of need that exists. There are, of course, opportunities to shorten the process in specific cases if initial funding at various stages is immediately forthcoming, but this is largely a function of prevailing budgetary constraints and cannot be predicted with any reliability. At this sage, I believe it would be desirable to give you a brief overview of the survey program as we see it today. As you know, all Civil Works construction, except for small projects which can be accomplished under authorities available to the Chief of Engineers, is a follow on from preauthorization studies under the survey report activity. Basically the survey report activity involves the determination of immediate and long-term water resource development needs together with formulation of sound plans for meeting those needs in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner. Included are studies ranging from consideration of a relatively local navigation, flood control, or beach erosion control improvement to consideration of a comprehensive multiple-purpose and multi-objective development of water and related land resources of a major river basin involving improvements under the programs of other Federal Agencies coordinated through the Water Resources Council. Our water and related land resources are being planned to serve man and at the same time provide for a quality environment. Under current practice, specific projects and systems of projects for development of water and related land resources have been investigated for engineering and economic feasibility in studies and investigations specfically directed by Congress. The basic objective has been to formulate a program to meet the needs of an expanding national economy. However, with increased emphasis being placed on preservation and enhancement of the environment, new dimensions are being incorporated in the planning process and costs of carrying out the studies have been increasing. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 specifically provides for the preparation of a 5-point Environmental Impact Statement as a part of or supplement to each report. Due to the advanced stage of completion of the reports for which these statements have been prepared to date, our efforts in this direction have been based largely on available information and have been relatively inexpensive. However, in keeping with the intent of the Act and in consideration of the comments we have received from the Council on Environmental Quality and other agencies, it is essential that our study efforts be expanded to assure that the environmental impacts are adequately analyzed and documented, and reflect the high level of coordination that is necessary to make these statements fully responsive to the Act. In many instances this will require increased staffing and use of consultants and will add to the costs of carrying out our pre-authorization study program. Inherent in this process is the need for greater public involvement in the planning process. We are devising procedures for accomplishing this objective. Such measures will add to the complexity and cost of conducting the survey program but in our opinion will lead to a more efficient overall operation and make our reports more responsive to the public interest. For the past two years a special task force of the Water Resources Council has been undertaking a review of the basic benefit-cost practices embraced within Senate Document No. 97 with a view to developing a revised and expanded statement of evaluation standards and procedures. The major thrust of this effort is the explicit recognition of the contribution of water resource development to the objectives of national economic development, regional development, environmental quality, and social well-being objectives. Water resources evaluation within this structure of multiple objectives would require a full display of all beneficial and adverse effects associated with each objective. Rather than there being a single measure of worth for a given project, namely the national efficiency benefit-cost index, there would be several measures, each displaying the relative merits of a given proposal in terms of its contribution to the several national objectives. These standards would also require that all benefits and costs be shown, including secondary benefits and intangibles which heretofore have not been evaluated. Further, greater stress would be placed on the need to develop alternative plans where there may be conflicts in meeting multiple objectives. The initial task force report published in June of 1969 was the subject of extensive public hearings and was tested upon a number of representative projects. The final report of the task force on principles and procedures was submitted to the Water Resources Council in June 1970 and is under review by the Council and the Executive Office. While these procedures have not yet been adopted, Section 209 of the 1970 Flood Control Act expresses the intent of Congress that these four objectives be included in Federally financed water resource projects, and in the evaluation of benefits and costs attributable thereto, giving due consideration to the most feasible alternative means of accomplishing them. The major part of the general investigation program of the Corps of Engineers, currently includes about 1,100 studies authorized by Congressional actions. These study reports are estimated to cost about $227 million. $100 million has been appropriated through Fiscal Year 1971, leaving a total of $127 million to complete these current studies. The Fiscal Year 1972 Budget request includes $17,860,000 for 347 surveys, of which 326 are continuing studies and 21 are new starts. The Budget request for the new starts is $600,000. The ultimate productivity of the general investigations program is reflected in the Omnibus Authorization Acts which are periodically passed by the Congress and approved by the President. These authorization Acts are based almost entirely upon Corps of Engineers' reports which are prepared and processed to Congress under this program. The most recent Act approved 31 December 1970 authorized some 33 projects or multiple-project programs having a total estimated Federal cost of $1.375.645.000. An additional 35 projects with a total estimated Federal cost of $99,676.000 were recently approved for construction under the authority of Section 201 of the 1965 Flood Control Act pertaining to projects of less than $10 million Federal cost. Before concluding my statement, I would like to review briefly a new area of study for the Corps of Engineers-our pilot wastewater management studies. Our pilot wastewater management program typifies some of the managerial techniques we are using to respond faster and more efficiently to problems requiring solution in today's complex planning environment. We expect to complete a survey scope study for each of the 5 metropolitan areas involved in approximately 16 months from the time first funds were made available (March 1971). To adequately set the scope and scale of these survey scope studies we are preparing, in about 4 months, a feasibility report that determines the magnitude of the problem, broadly assesses environmental, ecological, hygienic. and economic impacts of alternative systems for managing wastewater, evaluates the systems in terms of the multiple planning objectives, and finally concludes which systems should be carried to survey scope. It should be noted that in this system we are now formulating plans against the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and not just preparing an "add on" impact statement. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I and members of my staff will be pleased to respond to any questions that your sub-committee may have with respect to the conduct of this program. |