An
Engineering Victory
for Our Environment
A CITIZEN'S GUIDE
TO THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Public Affairs, EPA, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency,. nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consiitrte
endorsement or recommendation for use.
©The Institute for the Study of Health and Society 1972
-------
ENGINEERING A VICTORY FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT:
A CITIZENS' GUIDE
TO
THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Participant Authors
Thomas M. Clement, Jr.
Glenn Lopez
Environmental Re searcher-Writer
Pamela T. Mountain
Charles M. Clusen, Project Director
The Institute for the Study of Health and Society
1050 Potomac Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20007
The project presented herein was developed as part of the Advanced Studies
Program in Environmental Education pursuant to contract CPE-R-70-0054
from the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the opinions
expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and no official endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency should be inferred.
July 7, 1971
(c) The Institute for the Study of Health and Society 1972
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $3.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our sincere thanks to Patty Ramsey for typing this behemoth-
not once, but several times. Her patience, fortitude and
proof-reading were invaluable. Our thanks also goes to those
many people who voluntarily commented, criticized and corrected
various drafts, including Don Aitken, Leonard Ortolano,
Carlos Stern, John Sheppard, Brock Evans, William Partington,
Bruce Hannon, Bob Wolff, Charles Stoddard, Malcolm Baldwin,
Jon T. Brown and especially to the few, enlightened persons
within the Army Corps of Engineers who had a very significant
contribution. Corps personnel, beyond a doubt, provided
the most information in making this document.
We gratefully thank and commend the Departments of
Interior and Health, Education and Welfare and the Environmental
Protection Agency for their support in this undertaking. We
hope they will continue funding young people with ideas on
how to make the world a better place in which to live.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
I- 1
A Theory of Success for Environmentalists: 1-10
Prestige or Progress
Suggested Reading 1-14
Chapter I: How to Organize a Citizens' Group 1- 1
Getting Started 1- 3
Gaining Public Support 1- 9
Publicity and Public Relations 1-10
Moving in the Right Direction 1-11
Giving Testimony 1-15
Suggested Reading 1-18
Chapter II: The "Eighteen Steps to Glory" and 2- 1
Citizen Participation
Initiation of Action by Local Interests 2- 4
Consultation of Senator or Representative 2- 6
with Public Works Committee
Action by the Senate or House Public
Works Committee 2- 8
Assignment of Investigation by Chief of 2- 9
Engineers
Public Hearings by Division or District 2-11
Engineer
Investigation by Division or District 2-13
Engineer
Retrospect: Steps 1 through 6 2-18
Preview: Steps 7 through 12 2-19
Step 7: Review by Division Engineer and Issuance 2-25
of Public Notice
Step 8: Review and Hearings by the Board of 2-27
Engineers
Step 9: Preparation of Proposed Report to the 2-28
Chief of Engineers and Review Thereof by the
Affected State and Federal Agencies
Step 10: Transmittal of Report to the Office of 2-29
Management and Budget
Step 11: Transmittal of Report to Congress 2-31
Step 12: Authorization by Congress for Construction 2-33
of the Project
Authorization to Construction: Steps 13 through 18 2-36
Step 13: Assurances of Local Cooperation 2-36
Step 14: Request for Planning and Construction Funds 2-36
Step 15: Appropriation of Planning and Construction 2-37
Funds
Step 16: Preparation of Detailed Plans 2-38
Step 17: Invitation to Bid 2-40
-------
Step 18: Construction of Project 2-41
"Small Projects of Army Corps of Engineers" 2-43
Summary ? 2-45
Chart of All Steps i'n Corps Civil Works Projects 2-46~47
Case Study: Ben-Franklin Dam and Lock Project Cl~ 1
and Extension of Navigation on the
Upper Columbia River: Successful
Pre-Authorization Citizen Partici-
pation
Case Study Analysis Cl-21
Case Study: The Cross-Florida Barge Canal: C2- 1
Successful Litigation at the llth
Hour
Case Study Discussion C2-17
Chapter III: The Hard Corps and Our Soft Environment! 3- 1
i.
Dams and Reservoirs 3- 2
Navigation Projects 3-13
Urban Flood Control 3-19
The Corps' View of the Environment 3-22
Environmental Advisory Board 3-33
The National Environmental Policy 3-38
Act of 1969'
The Corps' Record of Compliance 3-40
A Case Study of 102 Statements: Oakley Dam 3-46
vs. Allerton Park
Blueprint for a Citizens' Environmental 3-56
Survey
Suggested Reading 3-72
Chapter IV: The Corps and Our Environment: 4- 1
Regulatory Functions
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 4- 1
Litigations Under the Refuse Act 4- 5
U.S. v Republic Steel Corporation 4- 5
U.S. v Standard Oil Company 4- 5
U.S. v Standard Oil of Puerto Rico 4- 6
U.S. v Interlake Steel Corporation 4- 6
Zabel v Tabb 4-7
Chart of Cases 4- 8
Private Citizens and the Refuse Act 4-11
Subsequent Legislation 4-16
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 4-16
The Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Water 4-18
Quality Improvement Act of 1970
1967 Memorandum of Understanding 4-19
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 4-21
Justice Department Policy and the Refuse Act 4-22
A New Permit Program under the Refuse Act 4-24
-------
Chapter V: The Dollars and Sense of Army Corps 5- 1
Projects
Benefit-Cost Analysis
Benefits 5- 2
Costs 5- 4
Project Planning Life and Discount Rate 5- 5
Cost Allocation 5- 7
Secondary and Regional Benefits 5-11
Proposed Guidelines for Water Resource Projects 5-20
Suggested Reading 5-30
Chapter VI: Some Thoughts on Benefits and Costs 6- 1
Which Costs More - Floods or Flood Control? 6- 2
Navigation: Steering a Straight Course for 6- 7
Special Interests
Water Quality Control: Treatment, Not Dilution 6-11
Recreation 6-13
Water Supply: Water, Water, Everywhere. . . 6-18
Suggested Reading 6-22
Appendix
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. Water Resources Policies
and Authorities
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. Public Meetings in Planning
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. Preparation and Coordination
of Environmental Statements
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. The Army Corps of Engineers
and Environmental Conservation. 9 Questions
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Addresses of Division and District Offices
Environmental Advisory Board of the Chief of Engineer?
Pertinent Addresses for Citizens Involved with Water
Resources Projects
-------
INTRODUCTION
Our nation's rivers, streams, and lakes have long been a
source of inspiration and pleasure to our people. Thoreau's vivid
descriptions of his life on Walden Pond and his canoe trips down
the Merrimack River; Twain's tales of life on the Mississippi;
Hemingway's short story about a fishing and camping trip on "The
Big Two-Hearted River" - each of these pays homage to the waters.
Millions of Americans have made our waterways the center of
their recreation, whether it be fishing for trout in a bubbling
stream, clinging to a rope swinging high over the "swimming hole,"
or paddling precariously down the white-watered rivers of the West.
Generations of Americans have sung about "01 Man River...he just
keeps rollin' along..." But does he?
At the same time, Americans have used the waterways as their
lifelines. Our rivers have served as the source of drinking water,
electric power, crop irrigationf industrial processes, transportation
and waste disposal. They have been dammed, dredged, diverted,
paved, piped, heated, and treated. The much-heralded taming of
the American wilderness begun by the pioneers and continued by
present-day developers has had a profound impact upon our water
resources.
The American people, as users of the waterways for both recre-
ational and developmental purposes, have the privilege--nay, the
responsibility—to involve themselves in planning how and where the
-------
nation's rivers are to be used. In many cases, at this late hour
in our national development, the question is whether a stretch of
water should be altered at all, or whether it should be left in
a natural state. The purpose of this book is to guide citizens
toward effective participation in water resource planning, with
particular regard for the water resource projects of the Army
Corps of Engineers.
The Corps of Engineers is the branch of the Federal government
with primary responsibility for the planning, construction, and
operation of major projects on our waterways. Its dams, levees,
canals, bridges, and reservoirs have been built to further the
causes of flood control, navigation, water supply, electric power,
and recreation. The Corps has responded to the demands of a
nation undergoing rapid economic and industrial development, with
its growing work force and spreading urban areas. Until quite
recently, the Corps of Engineers was regarded almost universally
as an heroic body.
Recent comments about the Corps, however,- have not always been
so enthusiastic. Justice William O. Douglas, for one, has gone so
far as to call the Corps "public enemy number one," and there are
others who share his view. Less extreme and more widespread is
the belief that the Corps is the agent of industry and Congress,
and the enemy of conservationists.
Why the change in public attitude toward the Corps? There
are several factors involved. First, and most important, has been the
recent increase in public awareness of environmental considerations.
This has been accompanied by the growing sophistication and organization
-------
of conservation groups. Previously, such groups were centered
mainly around a common love for woodlands, hiking, fishing, and
the like. Now they are adding a penchant for political action
to their appreciation of nature and outdoor recreation.
The mass media have also contributed to the Corps' public
relations problems. There have been numerous exposes of "pork
barrel" projects, and while these pieces have been critical primar-
ily of Congress, they have also hurt the Corps' "image." They have
often had the effect of arousing citizens' anger and then leaving
them with a feeling of helplessness in the face of a giant con-
spiracy of back-scratching bureaucrats.
The Corps has been slow to comprehend the reasons behind the
growing criticisms of its work. Recently, however, it has shown an
encouraging capacity to understand the environmental movement. It
is talking more and more with private citizens and inviting their
participation. Many Corps publications intended for public distri-
bution begin with a message from the Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant
General F.J. Clarke, expressing the Corps' concern about environ-
mental matters and public participation:
Many responsible citizens are concerned today about the
conservation and enhancement of our environment. We in the
Army Corps of Engineers are concerned also. For almost two
centuries the Corps, as the principal planner and developer
of America's water resources, has responded to the changing
needs of the Nation for the various benefits of water resources
development. In this tradition, we are determined to remain
sensitive to the American people's growing awareness of the
importance of environmental quality. We are scrutinizing and
revising our planning techniques to insure that they accurate-
ly reflect our concern for environmental values. The problems,
while complex, are not insurmountable.
-------
The Corps will continue to seek balance in meeting the
environmental and developmental needs of our Nation. Merely
determining whether or not a specific engineering solution
is economically justified is not enough. We shall encourage
and support efforts to bring the best existing ecological
knowledge and insights to bear on planning, developing, and
managing the Nation's water and related land resources. En-
vironmental values will receive full consideration along with
economic, social, and technical factors.
To realize the goals of environmental conservation, we
must have active public participation in the planning process.
We shall provide governmental and nongovernmental agencies
and the public with timely information opportunities, conse-
quences, benefits and costs - financial and environmental.
Before making recommendations, we shall actively solicit the
views of those affected by our proposals.
But if the Corps of Engineers is to be more receptive
to responsible public opinion, then the citizens must speak to the
Corps in a stronger and clearer voice about environmental fac-
tors, and must also be willing to listen to the Corps' own
views. We hope the information and suggestions found in the
following pages will aid citizens' groups to do just that. We
hope, too, that our suggestions for improvements within the Corps
will be received in a spirit of constructive criticism, since
that is our intent.
Before seeking to influence project planning in the Army
Corps of Engineers, citizens should find answers to a few basic
questions about the Corps :
-------
1) What factors ,are considered in the planning of water
resource projects?
2) How are environmental and economic factors incorporated
in project planning?
3) What is the exact procedure followed by the Corps in
taking a project from its earliest planning stages to
completion of construction?
4) What are the appropriate channels for citizen involvement
in each step of the process?
The Corps of Engineers plans and supervises construction of
both military and civil works projects. Military construction is
outside the scope of this book. The civil works projects of the
Corps will be our main focus, but we will also include a discussion
of the regulatory powers which the Corps of Engineers holds on our
national waterways. Both aspects of the Corps' civil works
program have excellent opportunities for citizen action. In fact,
the Refuse Act of 1899, which gives the Corps power to regulate
dumping of wastes into the waterways by private parties, has been
gaining prominence of late and has aroused special interest among
action-oriented groups seeking to abate particular nuisances.
FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Civil Works Projects
The Army Corps began to oversee military construction during
the American Revolution. In 1824 it added civil projects to its
defense-related activities, when Congress asked it to clear obstruc-
tions for some navigable waterways. Since 1936, when the Flood Control
Act was passed, the Corps has flourished; by 1970 the Corps had
3,950 civil projects completed or in progress, representing an
investment of some 33.2 billion dollars. The civil works
division currently employs about 200 military officers and 32,000
-------
civilians spread across the country in 11 division and 37
district offices. Within the continental United States, the
number, area, and location of divisions are based primarily upon
civil works considerations. Each division is charged with respon-
sibilities encompassing a major watershed or a group -of contiguous
lesser watersheds. The district offices perform virtually all
survey, planning, construction, operation and maintenance work of
the Corps of Engineers. Districts are commanded by engineer colonels
or senior lieutenant colonels and they may have from zero to six
additional officers. The remainder of the staff is all civilian.
All work done by the districts is supervised by the divisions.
While the Corps reports to the Department of Defense in
matters relating to the national defense, it is responsible directly
to the Secretary of the Army and the Congress in its civil functions.
All Corps of Engineers projects must be authorized and funded by
Congress. The Corps' share of the Public Works appropriation for
fiscal year 1970 was $1.1 billion, or about 70% of all money allo-
cated to natural resource concerns in the Federal budget. At that
time, there were 275 projects under construction and 452 more
which had been authorized by Congress but not yet begun.
Civil works projects developed by the Corps of Engineers are
generally multi-purpose in nature, and according to the Corps, may
encompass any combination of the following goals:
* flood control
* navigation improvement
* hydroelectric power production
* water supply for industry, agriculture, and
municipalities
* water quality control
* recreation
* conservation of fish and wildlife
-------
The Corps provides guidance to local communities in the
management of flood plains, since zoning and land development have
a potentially great impact upon flood damages. Additionally,
the Engineers participate in comprehensive study and planning for
development of the country's major river basins. Special attention
is currently being given to the Appalachia region.
Pamphlets published by the Corps each year surveying
projects and studies in each state describe some of the factors
considered by the Corps in its planning process:
Considerations which enter into recommendations
for project authorization to Congress generally in-
clude determination that benefits will exceed costs,
that the project is engineeringly sound and will
meet the needs of the people concerned, and that it
makes the fullest use possible of the natural re-
sources involved.
("Water Resources Development by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers
in New York State", January, 1971,p. iv-)
Environmental groups must encourage the Corps of
Engineers to place a strict interpretation on phrases such as
"benefits will exceed cost", "engineeringly sound", and
"meet the needs of the people concerned". Costs and benefits
must be viewed in more than a strictly economic sense;
environmental costs must be added to dollar costs with care.
A project must have more than structural integrity to be con-
sidered "engineeringly sound"; indeed, it must be determined
whether the application of any engineering at all outweighs the
-------
value of nature's own engineering in determining the course and
flow of a river. Finally, "the people concerned" are not only
those who will actually use the new facility, but also those who
live in the project area and those who must pay for the construc-
tion with their tax dollars. Citizen groups seeking a voice in
project planning must find ways to plug themselves into the
political process, since the use of Federal funds for water re-
source development is, first and foremost, a political matter.
Political action should, whenever possible, be bolstered by
economic, scientific, legal, and engineering expertise. The task
is sophisticated and complex, but certainly not beyond the grasp
of a dedicated citizenry.
Regulatory Powers
The Corps describes its regulatory powers as follows:
. . .the Corps of Engineers has the responsibility for
administering the Federal laws for the protection and
preservation of the navigable waters of the United
States, embracing: granting permits for structures in,
over, and under such navigable water; establishing
regulations for use of navigable waters from oil or
refuse.
("Water Resources Development by the
United States Army Corps of
Engineers in New York State", p. V-)
It is in the courts that citizens have helped enforce
the Corps' regulatory powers. A fuller discussion of this
area of Corps activity will be found in Chapter Four.
-------
There is no set prescription for effective citizen action
in relation to the Army Corps of Engineers. As in pharmaceutical
matters, every remedy has potential side-effects and must be
prescribed carefully with regard to the specific problem and
setting. If we were to put citizen action on some sort of spec-
trum, we would have to cover the entire range from close coopera-
tion to sharp confrontation. In some instances, citizens have
been successful in cooperating with the Corps and helping to pro-
duce water resource projects which were satisfactory to both the
Corps and environmentalists. In other cases, citizens have not
found the Corps officials in their District to be cooperative at
all, and have had to resort to confrontation on several fronts,
including the press and the courts. Corps officials assert that
there have been occasions, on the other hand, when the public
has not been cooperative. We hope that our suggestions will help
to foster more cooperation between citizens and the Army Engineers;
in all cases, we advocate the use of cooperative techniques until
and unless they are proven fruitless. It is far better to start
on the "conservative" end of the spectrum and take a left turn
later if necessary than it is to start out with a spirit of an-
tagonism which has the potential of precluding all cooperation
from the Corps.
-------
A THEORY OF SUCCESS FOR ENVIRONMENTALISTS:
PRESTIGE vs PROGRESS
Why are some groups very successful in the environmental move-
ment, while others only succeed in compromising crucial issues or
experience no success whatever? This is a most interesting question
and involves dabbling in some basic ecological theory (for those
theoretically inclined), much of which has been developed and ex-
plained by Steve Fretwell of the Kansas State University Division
of Biology- Fretwell has attempted to explain mathematically why
ecologists should become competent in both the theoretical and des-
criptive aspects of ecology (mixed training) as opposed to specializing
in either theory or data collection (specialized training). His
argument is that ecologists (environmental groups'in our case) with
mixed training will make more scientific progress than ecologists
(groups) with specialized training. Fretwell"s idea is developed as
follows:
"What do we use for a measure of success in developing the
strategy (mixed vs specialized) of being an ecologist (environmentalist)?
There are two alternatives: we can measure success in terms of
prestige, or in terms of progress. Prestige comes from the judgments
of our peers and superiors. The average ecologist (environmentalist)
receives such judgments in encounters at meetings, in reactions to pub-
lications, and through other social or professional media.(Emphasis added)
"Scientific progress is measured in terms which depend on
scientific methodology-" Environmental groups can measure this progress
-------
by how effectively they reach their goals. The hypothetico-deductive
(H-D) scientific method is generally accepted as the best methodology
for making scientific progress. The steps in the H-D method are:
1) Speculation (possibility of a dam, channel, etc.)
2) Hypothesis formation or model building (possible
social, economic, and ecological impact of the project)
3) Deduction-prediction (make a prediction based on the
possible impact)
4) Data gathering (collecting all the facts about a
project)
5) Data-hypothesis evaluation [do the facts about the
project verify or refute the prediction in (3)]
6) Explanation
a. If data refute prediction, go back to (1)
b. If data verify prediction, go back to (3), new
prediction
"Steps (2) and (3) require theoretical competence, steps (4) and (5)
data collection. Each step depends on the ones previous to it, and
following it. The theory is usually dependent on the data that is
being explained and predicted, and the data always depends on the
theory that predicted, or will explain it.
"In describing the success for this case, we can surmise that an
individual who is weak in theory but strong in data collection will do
a brilliant job collecting data that neither test a theory nor can
be very elegantly explained. He will make some, but very little, "H-D"
progress. Similarly, the person weak in laboratory or field work,
but firmly grounded in theory will offer beautiful theories that can
explain only a very small part of the available data, and which are
almost impossible to test. He will achieve no more progress than the
-------
data man above. The same level of progress achieved by the two
specialists could be achieved by a person moderately competent in both
theory and data collection work. Such a researcher would be able to
explain much of the data he collected, and would be able to test
most aspects of whatever theory he could develop. Since the field man
has data he cannot use, and the theory man models that he cannot apply
or test, their extra competence in these areas is not efficiently used."
Very simply, what has been said is that if environmentalists want
to make progress, they will diversify their approach to ecological
problems - multidisciplinary is the word. If prestige is the desired
goal, specialize, don't diversify. As Fretwell states it:
"So, there are two strategies available: specialized training
and mixed training. The first optimizes prestige, the second progress.
One can satisfy his ego, (rather, his super-ego) or his curiosity,
but not both. The mixed strategy scientist should tend to be crit-
icized for incompetence by both pure theorists and pure data biologists,
as he proceeds to make satisfying advances in the science. The specialist
will be frustrated by drawers full of unpublished data, or untested
theories." (Emphasis added)
This book is for citizens wishing to measure their success by
the progress they make in solving our many environmental problems (by
way of a multidisciplinary approach). For those that can measure their
suceess only by prestige, this book ends with this sentence.
-------
The first step toward effective citizen action lies
in the organization of citizens' groups. Perhaps our first
chapter will provide some helpful ideas about how to get
started.
-------
Suggested Reading
Introduction
Water Resources Development, U. S. Army, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Technical Liaison Office,
Washington, D. C. (Free)
-------
CHAPTER I
HOW TO ORGANIZE A CITIZEN'S GROUP
In this book, we hope to tell citizens how to communicate
effectively with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps
has a considerable impact upon our environment; not only does
it alter our waterways through its water resource projects, but
it also has an influence, sometimes unintentional, upon the use
and development of land areas near the sites of its water projects,
Because zoning and land development are the responsibility
of local government and cannot be directly controlled by the
Corps, we cannot expect planning engineers to guarantee an ab-
sence of objectionable development in a project area. It can
be seen, however, that a water resource project often creates
the conditions which are likely to foster rapid development;
therefore, the Corps has an indirect control over this development.
The desirability of such development should be among the factors
to be considered carefully by Corps planners and local citizens
alike. The Corps with all its political know how could do
much to insure ecologically-acceptable flood plain zoning and
development through improved design methods, real estate acqui-
sition, and insisting on obtaining local assurances that guarantee
a diverse habitat.
-------
We are writing primarily for citizens who are
concerned abopt the environmental impact of Army Corps
projects. Concern of this sort may come from a familiarity
and love for the immediate area in which a project is pro-
posed, or it may follow a long-established pattern of aware-
ness and activity in the conservation field. In either case,
we are advocating an approach which has sometimes been referred
to as "the new ecology" or "the new conservation" and which
may be defined as an action-oriented, politically effective
citizen's lobby in behalf of our environment. Longtime lovers
of the outdoors, like newcomers to the field, can gain much from
a thorough examination of the way in which Army Corps projects
are planned, evaluated, authorized, and constructed. In seeking
to influence project planning, citizens need two things: organiza-
tion and information. This chapter will deal with the former,
for the process of organizing a citizen's group for effective
action must come first.
-------
Citizens' groups which have worked successfully with (or
against) the Corps of Engineers have, for the most part, been
coalitions consisting of representatives from established con-
servation, civic, and sporting groups. Possessing names like the
Committee on Allerton Park, the Florida Defenders of the Environment,
the Columbia River Conservation League, and the California
Committee for Green Foothills, these organizations have usually
focused their efforts on specific Corps projects within their
local environment. They have been formed on an ad hoc basis, but
they have been careful to cooperate with existing groups and draw
upon their membership lists, expertise, and contacts.
Getting Started
Mr. Angler, a local citizen and member of the Winding River
Trout Fishermen, has heard from his friend Mr. Stalwart, a
businessman and officer in the Chamber of Commerce, that local
officials are discussing with the Corps of Engineers a possible
stream channelization project on a nearby portion of the Winding
River. Angler fears that a concrete pavement in the river will
have an adverse impact on the local fishery, and he wants to
"do something" to be sure that this is not so or, if it is, to
stop the project. Stalwart, on the other hand, is very enthusiastic
about the Corps' idea which is designed to control local flooding,
because a local real estate developer (who is also an officer in the
Chamber of Commerce) has plans for a large complex of office
buildings, apartments, and shops to be built on the flood plain
-------
after flood protection is completed. The Chamber of Commerce
anticipates a large increase in business and tax revenues as a
result of the development. Stalwart also describes to Angler
how Mr. Mildew, a shopkeeper on Front Street, had come to the
Chamber of Commerce as spokesman for all the Front Street mer-
chants who were flooded out during the preceding year. Mildew
had begged the Chamber to do whatever it could to obtain flood
protection for the commercial district along the riverfront part
of the flood plain.
Angler realizes that the business and financial interests
he will be meeting are formidable, and that he must organize
conservation and sporting enthusiasts in order to inject their
viewpoint into the discussions with the Corps of Engineers. He
begins by contacting the other members of the Trout group, who
discuss the project at their regular monthly meeting. They
decide to alert the members of other groups. .They look in the
Conservation Directory, published annually by the National Wildlife
Federation, for the names of organizations within their state. In
addition to contacting the local chapters of some of the well-known
national groups (such as the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League,
and the Wilderness Society), they talk to regionally-based recrea-
tional groups of canoeists, hikers, and campers. They then plan
a general meeting for all these groups to organize an umbrella
organization and to discuss what they know about the proposed project.
-------
(Later chapters in this book will describe how to find accurate
information about the Corps' plans for a project? at this point
we are concerned only with the organizational aspects of a
citizen group.)
Out of the meeting comes a new organization--the Winding
River Preservation Committee, with Angler as its chairman. Each
of the groups represented at the organizational meeting agrees
to take on its own studies and monitor the Corps' planning within
its field of expertise to contribute to the whole effort. The
canoeists, fishermen, and campers will study the recreational use
and potential of the river; the Audubon Society and Sierra Club
members will investigate area wildlife, and so on. The group as
a whole agrees to seek professional legal, economic, and scientific
help from the faculty of the nearby state university, and to seek
data from the Corps itself as well. A member of the local League
of Women Voters agrees to write to local, state and federal officials
to learn their views on the Corps proposal. A second meeting to
report on progress and plan further action is scheduled for two
weeks later. At that time, representatives from each of the
affiliated organizations will bring membership lists so that the
Winding River group can send out an appeal for support and funds.
This hypothetical group is off to a good start. Like any
volunteer organization, it will have to rely upon the dedication
and hard work of its members. While a broad base of public support
is being sought, the Winding River group doubtless will learn very
quickly that the real workers in the organization will form only a
small nucleus of the organization—perhaps no more than a dozen people.
-------
At the outset, it is important
-------
identity below the goals of the group. The true
believer doesn't care if somebody else (usually a
politician) gets the credit for stopping a dam or
getting citizens appointed to a project planning
committee. As Robert Theobold wrote in his book,
An Alternative Future for America II, "you can try
to get credit for social change, or you can get
social change, but you cannot have both." (Chicago,
Swallow Press, 1968, p. 38).
3) Citizens must have vision for the forest and the
trees; that is, the group must master detailed
facts while not forgetting the larger picture into
which the facts must be placed.
4) Every lobbying organization, to be effective, must
possess at least three senses - the sense of per-
spective, the sense of timing, and plain old common
sense. Perspective means keeping priorities in
order according to their real importance, and not
getting hung up on tangential problems. Timing is
important in knowing when to act and when to play
a waiting game. Common sense must be applied to
every phase of the struggle.
5) Citizens dealing with the Corps, as well as with
government spokesmen on local, state, and national
levels, must exercise an abundance of diplomacy and
human understanding. A simple tactic which helps
win friends and influence people is to praise the
Corps, or a Congressman, or local authorities, when
they do something right. It is important to keep
those with viewpoints different from your own from
feeling defensive and under attack, if you wish to
gain their cooperation.
6) The virtue of patience must be present within the
group. Remember, many Corps projects remain on
the drawing boards for years and years before con-
struction is begun.
7) There must also be a willingness to compromise, since
almost all disputes are resolved through compromise.
Don't compromise your principles, but do compromise
where it will help your larger purpose. (A sense of
perspective, remember?)
8) Citizens should remember that if their studies and
conclusions are to be respected, they must be
objective. While a group like Mr. Angler's may
begin with a hypothesis, it must wait until all the
fact are in before reaching a conclusion. The con-
clusion should conform with the facts, and not
vice versa.
-------
Gaining Public Support
How do you get people to support your cause? Public support
is based on what might be described as enlightened self-interest;
that is, people will support a cause if, and only if, they think
it will benefit them personally. Not everyone enjoys fishing, so
our hypothetical Mr. Angler will have to- find ways to gain the en-
thusiasm of the community-at-large. To do this, he will have
to develop an ability to listen to and understand many different
viewpoints> and he will have to search for a common interest
among them. He will have to view the Winding River issue as
more than a sport fisherman's concern. He might, for example,
present the following questions to his community:
1) As taxpayers, do we want our dollars to go for this
project? If we do want it built, what do we want for
our money? Who will receive the benefits of the project?
2) As local residents, do we want our river altered? Would
the project require fencing, which would make the river
a physical barrier in the midst of the community?
3) As property owners, are we satisfied with the aesthetic
potential of the project?
4) As recreation seekers, would we prefer the river left
in its natural state or physically altered and managed
for recreational use?
5) As voters, how do we want to hold a referendum on the
issue of local cooperation and shared funding of the project?
Are we satisfied with the work our elected officials have
done in studying the project?
And so on. There are doubtless many more questions which the
citizens themselves might pose to the Corps and the Winding River
-------
Preservation Committee as the project plans gain public awareness.
Many people are inherently reluctant to join "causes",
especially controversial ones. But at the beginning, at the point
at which Mr. Angler and his group have begun working, there is
no real controversy. The immediate goal of the group, you will
recall, is to find facts. Hence there is no stigma of a radical
appearance to inhibit public enthusiasm. Controversy may come
later, but if many people have already begun to identify with the
Winding River group and have participated in the formulation of
its goals, they will not be put off when the issues become clearly
drawn.
It is important, too, to demonstrate clearly to supporters
just what it is you want them to do. A good definition of frustra-
tion is to go to a meeting because you are interested in the subject
matter and then to discover that nobody has a clear notion of what
to do. If you want people to write letters, tell them to whom
to write, furnishing title and complete address. If you want them
to telephone people in the community, give them all the information
they will need. If you want them to study an aspect of the problem,
offer suggestions about where to find information. Be sure that
everyone feels useful.
Publicity and Public Relations
Every community has people who are skilled in public relations
and writing. The participation of these people on either a working
or consulting basis will be most helpful. They will be able to
suggest ways to gain the public's attention at many levels.
-------
Although there is a certain negative connotation in the image of
"publicity seekers", there is nothing wrong with this activity
provided it does not become an end in itself. The people in-
volved should not be seeking personal aggrandizement, but rather
should be furthering the aims of the group. To this end, there
are several tried-and-true methods:
1) Media coverage of special events, such as a clean-up day
on the river. It is hard to argue for the preservation
of a river in its "natural state" if it is, in fact,
full of beer cans and automobile tires. A Saturday
clean-up, perhaps involving Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts,
as well as the environmentally-oriented groups, will
increase the credibility of the group and be a source
of newspaper stories.
2) A public statement of support from a well-known local
citizen. Many communities have at least one citizen whose
fame exceeds the local boundaries, and whose public
statements make page one in the daily papers. Citizen
groups would do well to let him or her in on their thinking
and findings and urge him to make a statement of support.
3) Special "inspection tours" of the project site or the
site of potential recreational facilities, preferably
including some prominent invited guests such as the
mayor, the local delegates to the state legislature,
and a U.S. Congressman or Senator. Press releases
should be distributed before«r the tour containing details
about time, place, purpose, and people involved in the
tour. After the tour, further press releases should
describe what was seen and what comments were made by
guests during the tour.
4) Fund-raising events, such as fairs or block parties, can
serve the dual purpose of raising money and gaining pub-
licity for the cause. Such events should always include
a clear presentation of the group's views. A special
booth might contain photographs, maps, brochures, and
petitions to be signed by those browsing through the
material.
There are, of course, many more ideas. Your group will come
up with its own, tailored to fit the local community. The overall
-------
aim of the committee overseeing publicity for the organization
should be to prevent a communications gap from arising between
its members and other local citizens. Property owners near the
site of the project should be on a special mailing list to pro-
vide them with full knowledge of all events, public meetings and
statements. Nothing is more antagonizing than leaving these
people out, for they will feel that it has been done deliberately,
that you are trying to hide the facts from them. They will con-
sider themselves intimately involved in the fate of their neigh-
borhood, and they should not have to say, "But nobody ever told
us about it!"
Moving in the Right Direction
Dr. Bruce Hannon, Assistant Professor of Engineering at the
University of Illinois, and chairman of the Committee of Allerton
Park, a citizens' group currently fighting a Corps project in
Illinois, describes how his group works "within the system". He
divides "the system'1, about which we hear so much these days,
into three main areas:
1) The special interest segment, or those who derive
economic or political advantage through the use and
development of natural resources. This category might
include barge companies, power companies, real estate
developers, other business interests, and their lobbies.
2) The recourse segment, or those to whom citizens can
turn for help in realizing the wise use and preser-
vation of our natural resources. We might find re-
course in all three branches of government, as well
as in the communications media and among professionals
with expertise in natural resources.
3) The use segment, or those who depend on natural resources
in a general way. The public as a whole and the citizen
lobbies are the components of this category.
-------
The activities of an effective citizens' group should be
directed at all three parts of "the system". Borrowing Hannon's
outline, we can point out some of the problems and expectations
of dealing with each component:
1) The special interest segment. Until fairly recently
the only effective contact that elected officials have had with
environmental interests has been through the special interests
who stand to profit from the exploitation of natural resources.
Now, however, citizens with an environmental concern are begin-
ing to be heard in opposition to these interests, because people
are beginning to see the results of rapid depletion of natural
resources in air and water pollution, overcrowding, loss of open
space, and shortages in some resources. Although environmental
groups such as the Winding River Committee often stand in opposi-
tion to vested interest groups, they should not leave the latter
out of their mailing lists or public meetings. Occasionally,
when environmental issues have heated up to real confrontations
these vested interests have backed down. If the public makes it
clear that a new plant or highway or dam will have to include
environmental safeguards which will make the project far more ex-
pensive that the original estimate, the interests involved may
simply decide that all the fuss has made their plan unfeasible.
On the other hand, if a dam is to be built, the Corps may be
encouraged by the public to build in sophisticated environmental
safeguards.
-------
2) The recourse segment. Most of the activities of citizens'
environmental groups will be directed toward the recourse system.
There are many ways to approach it; recourse to the communications
media has already been described briefly. We have also mentioned
the necessity of seeking recourse in professional expertise, par-
ticularly in legal, economic, and scientific areas.
How to approach the governmental part of the recourse system
remains to be described, and even here our description will barely
scratch the surface of available opportunities.
a) Administrative agencies. At the Federal level, the
regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission,
the Atomic Energy Commission, the multitude of bureaus and offices
within the Cabinet Departments -- all of these have too often been
advocates for the interests they were created to regulate. Nonethe-
less, citizens can do much to convince these agencies that their re-
sponsibility lies in the protection of the public, not of special
interests. Other sources of recourse, such as the courts, often re-
fuse to entertain citizens' complaints until they have "exhausted
their administrative remedies." Agencies particularly concerned with
the Corps of Engineers include the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Council on Environmental Quality, many offices within the De-
partment of Interior, the Water Resources Council, and the Office
of Management and Budget, to name a few. Later chapters in this
book will provide specific suggestions for dealing with these
agencies. State governments usually have agencies which coincide
roughly with the jurisdiction of Federal Agencies.
b) Legislative branch. Laws are enacted by elected offi-
cials at local, state, and Federal levels, and none of these should be
-------
neglected by environmentalists lobbying on the behalf of the
people. This requires reaching enough voters to demonstrate a con-
sensus to the elected officials. A man in legislative office is
guided by his conception of what voters want, since his prospects
for re-election are closely tied to his ability to deliver. An
organized environmental group with a rapid system for disseminating
information and marshalling signatures, letters, or telegrams will
have a great impact on legislators. Here, particularly, a sense
of timing is important. Public hearings provide a good opportunity
for citizens to reach the legislative branch. Delivering testimony
is an important skill, and we shall discuss it more fully later in
this chapter.
The greatest possible impact comes of course, in an election
year, when citizens can support and help fund candidates who share
their view of priorities.
c) Top man—last resort. A direct appeal to the President,
the Governor, or the Mayor generally comes after the administrative
and legislative remedies have been tried unsuccessfully. A veto
or an executive order may be forthcoming if the top man is convinced
of the merits of a citizens' group's cause. It is worthwhile to in-
clude the Mayor's, Governor's, or President's office in all mailings
and publications produced by the group from the beginning, since a
direct appeal at the last minute will stand a better chance of suc-
cess if at least a few of the chief's aides are familiar with the
problem.
d) Judicial alternative. In some cases, it may be worth-
while to seek a court injunction to stop a course of action detri-
mental to the environment. However, this recourse has its drawbacks.
-------
It is not applicable unless there has been a violation of law, which
is not always the case. It can be expensive. Citizens have recently
been successful in several suits against the Corps of Engineers, but
each case must be decided not only on its merits but also on proce-
dural matters such as standing and sovereign immunity. Good legal
advice is essential for a group contemplating this course of action.
3) The Use System. We are all users of natural resources, and
hence the "use system", as described by Bruce Hannon, refers to the
general public. We have described several methods of involving the
public through publicity and group membership. The petition method
is another excellent way to involve the people, since those seeking
signatures will have an opportunity to explain their cause to those
they canvass, and the number of signatures may have a great impact
upon elected officials. Citizens can also volunteer to lobby on be-
half of a group. This kind of volunteer citizen action can be very
effective in swaying political figures.
Giving Testimony
The public hearing is the formal way for citizens to present
their views to public officials. Hearings are held at virtually
every level of government, from the local zoning board to the stand-
ing committees of the United States Senate. The Corps of Engineers
holds hearings at the District level during its consideration of
water resource projects. There are a few general rules to follow in
giving testimony, no matter what the level of the committee or of-
ficials who are holding hearings :
1. Write your statement. Have enough copies for each member
of the committee to have one. Be sure to give a copy to each news-
paper, radio, and TV man covering the hearing.
2. Make your statement BRIEF - speak no more than 4 minutes at
the most.
-------
3. Start statement with your name, address, and title or
group affiliation.
4. Tell why you support (or oppose) the matter under
consideration.
5. Give facts to support your position.
6. Your statement might include some of the following: (a)
How does this affect the public interest? (b) Who will benefit?
(c) How much will it cost? (d) What other groups favor your posi-
tion?
7. Always thank the committee for the opportunity to testify.
8. If you have several speakers, have each cover a different
point or present a statement from different point of view. Try
to show wide-spread support in your choice of speakers. AVOID
REPETITION. If you have come prepared with several speakers and
are permitted only one, hand in written statements of the others.
You might also plan to have written statements of community leaders
who support your position but cannot come to the hearing.
9. In giving statement, speak distinctly, loudly enough to
be heard, slowly enough to be understood, but not so slowly that
you lose the attention of your listeners.
10. Be prepared to answer questions regarding your statement
or position. If you do not know the answer to a question, don't
bluff. Admit you don't know, and offer to try to get the answer
if the committee wants it. Follow through. On rare occasions
a committee member may be hostile and may attempt to rattle, con-
fuse, or irritate you. Don't let yourself get confused or angry.
11. Try to have many supporters attend the hearing even though
they will not testify. Some call this packing a hearing; others
call it showing strength and support of your views. What you say
at the hearing is important, but numbers reinforce content, and
an indication of support sways legislators, as well as public opinion.
12. Listen quietly and very carefully to the statements of
your opposition. If the arguments of your opponents do not hold
water, don't worry. Others present will see through them too. If
your opponents misstate facts and you are given an opportunity to
reply, do so with dignity and in a calm manner. Do not attack
your opposition, or make personal remarks in any way.
13. Respect the right of others to disagree with you. Do
not applaud or show disapproval of any speaker.
-------
Perhaps the most important thing for a citizen's group to
remember is that its efforts count as much as those of any pro-
fessional. A government of, by, and for the people must rely on
the views of all the people. The fact that your group may consist
entirely of volunteers who work only part-time on environmental
concerns does not lessen the importance of the work you are doing.
In fact, volunteer organizations are often far more dedicated and
effective than professional ones, since volunteers work only be-
cause they are dedicated to the cause. Groups of volunteers are
not locked into established methods of doing things, and often
they possess a unique creativity- There is a vast difference be-
tween a dilettante and a dedicated volunteer; if you are working
hard to find the facts and use them effectively within the political
system, you will have an impact.
Once organized, your group will need to know how the Corps of
Engineers functions. The authorization of a Corps project follows
eighteen basic steps, and we need now to examine those steps.
-------
Suggested Reading
Chapter One
League of Women Voters of the United States, Planning in the Community,
No. 299, 1730 M Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20036.
League of Women Voters Education Fund publications:
The Big Water Fight, 1966.
Shaking the Money Tree, 1969.
(Both available from the League of Women Voters Education
Fund, 1730 M Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20036
Conservation Directory, annual publication of the National Wildlife
Federation, 1412 16th St., N.W., Washington, D. C., 20036,
$1.50
Reich, Charles A., The Greening of America, Bantam Books,
New York, New York, 1971.
Stevens, L. Clark, e.s.t. A Steerman's Guide to the Coming
Decade of Conflict-. Capricorn Press, Santa Barbara,
California, 1970.
-------
-------
CHAPTER II
THE "EIGHTEEN STEPS TO GLORY" AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There are eighteen primary steps followed by all Corps of
Engineers projects from the initial planning to completion of
construction. The Corps and the Public Works Committees of
Congress have often called the procedure the "eighteen steps
to glory." They are set forth in Corps Pamphlet EP 1120-2-1,
and if thoroughly understood by citizens' groups seeking to
influence Corps projects, they can be a valuable tool for those
groups. More often than not, citizens' opposition to a Corps
project come to life at some point after the Corps has initiated
its studies relating to the project. Citizens should thus begin
their efforts by determining at which step a proposed Corps
project stands, and what chance they have to stop or to change
the proposal. In that way, environmentalists can have a max-
imum impact on the decision-making process which leads to the
completion of a project--or its rejection.
"Taking on" the Corps of Engineers is a difficult job.
The Corp is an extremely professional and efficient organization,
and concerned citizens seeking to participate in planning should
work toward equally high standards of competence and professional-
ism. There are a few general principles to be kept in mind by
citizens' groups in following a project through its eighteen steps:
1) The group's attitude toward the Division and District
Engineers of the Army Corps (who will be the main liaison between
the public and the project officer and project planning chief)
should be one of cooperation, not antagonism.
-------
One can present one's case firmly without emotional attacks
against the Corps; such attacks can only lessen the group's
credibility and the Army Engineers' willingness to cooperate.
2) The earlier in the project a group becomes involved, the
greater its chances for success in affecting the project's outcome.
The greatest opportunity for citizen action is in the first phase
of planning, from Step 1 through Step 6. The completion of these
first six steps may take from two to five years, sometimes longer.
This is ample time for groups to collect facts and present them in
a concise and organized manner. It is important, too, for citizen's
groups to understand all the steps well enough to know which ones
afford good opportunities for action, and which ones are not con-
ducive to anything except waiting and watching. A sense of timing
is important; nothing is more counter-productive than for citizens
to demand a public meeting with the Corps when the project plans
are being reviewed by another agency, for example. An early entry
into the planning and review process will allow citizens to use
their time judiciously -
To put it another way, it is far better for citizens to be
involved in initial planning than to have to resort at a late hour
to such tactics as court injunctions to stop a project which has
already been authorized, funded, and contracted for. Litigation
can be costly and should be viewed as a last resort.
3) Early and frequent contact should be made with the local
news media in order to keep the general citizenry informed on the
-------
issues surrounding a Corps project. The daily and weekly papers,
TV and radio stations—and even the "throwaway" shopping news--
can use cogent summaries of the group's position. News media
should be informed of all meetings and hearings with the District
Engineer, and other milestones in the campaign. Working with
specific reporters increases chances for maximum coverage.
4) Conservation groups can increase their effectiveness
considerably by including economists, engineers, ecologists, and
attorneys in their ranks. The Corps is not receptive to amateurish
attacks from "bird and bunny people" who, they claim, are inevitably
opposed to development anywhere, in any form. We do not imply that
the preservationist philosophy is wrong; on the contrary, the need
for unspoiled wilderness must be carefully considered in decisions con-
cerning water resource projects. But nature-lovers must give them-
selves the benefit of expertise in scientific, economic, and legal
fields. When a group's membership does not already include such
expertise, it should be obtained from the community or nearby
universities on either a voluntary or a paid basis. Like most
bureaucracies, the Corps has an "underground" working for a
total redirection of priorities and elimination of its present
ecological philosophy. These people are relatively few, but are
scattered from district levels up to the Chief of Engineers office.
These individuals are most willing to cooperate with logical and
intelligent citizen groups to show them methods of action for
their particular project.
Now, a look at the "eighteen steps to glory" is in order:
-------
STEP NUMBER ONE; INITIATION OF ACTION BY LOCAL INTERESTS,
CONGRESSMEN, OR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Local citizens, municipal governments, or state Governors,
generally begin a water resource project by contacting their
Senators of Representatives to request Federal aid in improving
local water resources. They may also touch base with the Dis-
trict Engineer of the Corps of Engineers at the same time for
advice in proposing such improvements. Local parties promoting
water projects normally include in addition to citizens directly
affected such interests as barge companies, industrialists,
real estate developers, contractors, and the local Chamber of
Commerce. All these people feel they stand to gain economically
from a Corps project. Real estate developers and contractors
may believe, for example, that a flood control project will
enable them to develop land that was previously considered un-
safe because of potential flood damage. Their interest lies
in the sharp increase in land values they foresee for the area
in question. Industries in the locality may look ahead to new
power sources for their plants—provided by the Federal govern-
ment with Federal taxes. Barge companies want an opportunity
to expand their operations, competitive ability and profits by
way of navigation improvements such as channel dredging. And
local businessmen, united in the Chamber of Commerce, seem in-
variably to predict that man-made lakes will provide a wealth of
recreation facilities, along with the increased commerce that
campers, bathers, and boaters will bring to their town.
Sometimes the initial request for Federal assistance is
made public through the press. Often, however, project propo-
nents work quietly in the initial stage for their own benefit.
-------
As soon as a proposal is known to an environmental group, the
group should determine why the Corps has been asked to do a
particular study and what group of people support the proposal.
Conservationists should begin collecting data to determine
what effect the proposed project might have on the ecology of
the area and insisting that other local, state and Federal
agencies and the Corps do the same. Emphasis should be placed
on making a thorough inventory of the area under consideration,
including wildlife species lists, unique geological and biolog-
ical features, archeological sites and present land and water
usage. The possible effect on each resource should be care-
fully stated with recommendations made for comprehensive studies
on these possible effects. Corps policy requires that the Dis-
trict Engineer make an environmental assessment, actually a
draft of the environment impact of the project, prior to the
public hearing in Step 5. The District Engineer often begins
this assessment in Step 1.
At this stage groups should not overlook the good effects
of a possible project. The "project" is just an idea right now,
so both potential negative and positive effects on the economic
and environmental aspects should be scrutinized. The greatest
value of getting involved in Step 1 is to make it publicly known
that there is a concerned, organized, and eager environmental
group that has expertise which should be included in all future
planning of the proposal. Citizen groups should also formulate
and make known their long-range goals and suggest ideas for
possible alternatives to the initial proposal, including doing
nothing at all.
-------
In the past, there have been very few instances where con-
cerned citizens have become involved this early. Hopefully
this will change as the public becomes more ecologically and
economically aware and as the Corps undertakes new methods of
seeking public comment and knowledge and incorporating them
into the initial planning. The Corps circular concerning
public meetings is No. 1120-2-55, entitled, Public Meetings in
Planning, which is included in the appendix.
Most states have a document called the Comprehensive State
Water Plan which outlines all proposed water resource projects
in the state. This report can be obtained from any River
Basin Commission of State Water Resources Arency and should
be one of the first items a group goes after if it wishes to
become involved in water resource projects. For each state
the Corps has its own annual report of the present water re-
sources activities it is involved in. This booklet is
entitled Water Resources Deveopment by the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers in ....(name of state) and is published annually
by each Division of the Corps
STEP NUMBER TWO; CONSULTATION OF SENATOR OR
REPRESENTATIVE WITH PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Senators and Congressmen are usually enthusiastic about
the prospect of a Corps of Engineers project in their state or
district. Since the days of the founding fathers, bi-annual
"Rivers and Harbors" legislation has been aptly called the
Political "Pork Barrel." The prospects of obtaining Federal
funds and new Federal contract jobs serve as powerful stimuli
for legislators facing re-election every two years to give such
-------
projects their utmost cooperation. Most Congressmen are re-
luctant to question another member's pet project. Public works
projects often epitomize the classic tradition of logrolling in
Congress.
The first thing a Congressman or Senator does to promote
a Corps of Engineers project is to request the Committee on
Public Works to make a review of any existing reports on the
designated project area or, where no previous report exists,
to request that a study be made. Funds for such a review or
study are not usually allocated when the study is authorized.
The actual money is included in an appropriations bill at a
future date.
Environmental groups will usually want to encourage such
a study and evaluate it carefully to be sure that environmental
and economic considerations are given proper weight. Occasionally,
however, the most effective way to stop a project which seems
blatantly uneconomic or environmentally unsound is to prevent
the initial study from taking place. In such cases, existing
economic and environmental information from an organized group
and strong public sentiment may provide a clear picture of the
basic issues involved. Whether encouraging or discouraging a
study, a concerned group will want to provide Congressmen and
Senators from their state with as much information as possible
about the view of their constituents* To simply, oppose may not
be enough; a group may wish to suggest that other realistic
alternatives be considered. Perhaps a study of one of the alter-
natives would lead to a more viable solution of the problem.
-------
STEP NUMBER THREE: ACTION BY THE SENATE OR HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS
" ' COMMITTEE' ~~ ' ~~
Before the Committee on Public Works decides whether to recommend
a study, concerned groups should widen their Congressional contacts
to include all members of the Committee. Sending a personal
spokesman to testify and talk with committee staff members is- .the
most effective way to convince the Committee of the need for careful
study of the ecological balance involved, and to insure that
thorough studies are made to determine all possible project costs.
If funds are not included to study every potential cost in detail,
there is no assurance that these possible costs will be included
in future project design.
In these early stages, ideas are considered and included in
planning. In the later stages (Steps 6 through 18) only facts and
figures become part of the project. The time for studying and
incorporating ideas and suggestions is Steps 1 through 6. Citizens
should remember that suggestions must be within reason and not
brainstorms or idle dreams. Citizens should present their views
to the Committees on letterhead paper in an organized and concise
manner, far in advance of the action they might take on the proposed
study, provided they have a fair opportunity to participate. If
the proposed study borders on the absurd (such as Columbia River
diversion to California or reversing the flow of Canada's rivers
south to the U.S., as proposed by some water interests a few years
ago), citizens should make every effort to stop any funding for a
feasibility study.
-------
STEP NUMBER FOUR: ASSIGNMENT OF INVESTIGATION
BY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
When the Congress authorizes and funds such a study,
either as a review of a previously-made report or as a new
endeavor, the Chief of Engineers is given primary responsibility
for the study. He passes the responsibility to the Division
Engineer for the project area, who usually passes it to the
District Engineer. The study may take from three to five years
to complete. Indeed, the entire process of building a water
resource project, from initial study to completion of construc-
tion, sometimes takes more than a generation.
Funds have now been given the Corps to carry out the initial
feasibility study and in most cases, it is the District office
of the Corps which is primarily responsible for completing the
report. The Division Engineer and the Chief of Engineers in
Washington, D. C., act as advisers and reviewers of the initial -
plan. One the investigation has begun, citizen groups should
keep in continuous and cooperative contact with the District
Engineer. This initial study is the basis for all future design
and planning of the proposal, and if concerned groups are to
make a significant input to the proposal, it is during this study.
A citizen group should understnad fully the reasons for
carrying out this initial study; for example, is there a serious
flood threat, a serious water shortage or water quality pro-
blem that will be best alleviated, hopefully eliminated, by
a Corps project? It is imperative to understnad alJL aspects
of the study. Then a group can begin:
-------
1) Gathering its own data and monitoring the
Corps studies
2) Determining what it thinks is the most economically
and environmentally sound solution and monitoring
the Corps and other agencies involved.
3) Plugging in its ideas and expertise to the
feasibility study, via the District Engineer,
Citizens cannot rely on stopping or grossly changing a pre-
liminary study of a specific problem, but they should avidly
support the comprehensive study and offer various alternatives
themselves. At this stage, the alternative of doing nothing
must be considered as carefully as the other alternatives.
Non-construction solutions and alternatives should receive very
serious consideration at this stage. Such possibilities as
new zoning ordinances or designation as a National Recreation
Area, Scenic River or greenbelt should be thoroughly studied by
citizens and various government agencies.
Sometimes the Corps is understaffed and underfunded; there-
fore it is unable to execute adequate studies of the viable
alternatives, particularly if funds were not authorized by the
Public Works Committees in Step 3. Citizens should lobby in
Congress to insure adequate funding is given the Corps. A
citizen group can have an invaluable impact on a project if it
has the economic, engineering, legal, and ecological expertise
to conduct studies which measure up to the Corps' own standards
and criteria. The Corps is receptive to such inputs and openly
encourages them. It is a public servant and should welcome
the public's ideas.
-------
STEP NUMBER FIVE: PUBLIC HEARINGS
BY DIVISION OR DISTRICT ENGINEER
The Division or District Engineer is required by Corps
policy to hold public hearings and public meetins to ascertain
the views of local people regarding a proposed Corps of Engi-
neers project. In its Pamphlet No. 1120-2-1, the Corps promises:
Local interest will be afforded full opportunity
to express their views on the character and extent
of the improvement desired, on the need and advis-
ability of its execution, and on their general
willingness and ability to cooperate with the
Federal Government in the costs of projects in
accordance with established policies and laws. (pp. 2-3)
Organizations opposing or supporting a project idea should
be prepared to give a factual and concise presentation of their
views, as a group. The public meeting is one of the best oppor-
tunities for an environmental group to present its ideas and
goals to both the Corps and the general public and to win con-
verts to its viewpoint. Statements by unaffiliated individuals
and emotional pleas by groups or individuals usually have only
a limited effect on the Corps. Emotional statements may even
have a polarizing effect, creating a situation of confrontation
rather than cooperation.
Although a well-documented, factual presentation is the
most important part of a conservation group's presence at a
meeting, sheer numbers are also a help. By filling the hearing
room with concerned people, a group can convince the Corps of
Engineers that its own concerns about the possible environmental
damage or economic misuse from a proposed project are widely held
by enfranchised local citizens.
-------
It goes without saying, of course, that good press coverage
of the meeting is extremely important for an environmental
group. The press should be provided with advance copies of the
group's statement to the Division or District Engineer. Letters
to editors and purchased advertisements can be used to supple-
ment the articles, and TV coverage which should emerge from
the meeting.
Corps personnel have stressed the need for small group
meetings prior to the.official public meeting and will welcome
such informal gatherings. The idea is for both the Corps and
citizen groups to present their plans and ideas so that both
parties are aware of what is to be presented as testimony at
the public meeting. Citizen groups, in particular, should pre-
sent the essence of their testimony to the Corps before the
public meeting to establish a measure of trust with the District
staff and to allow it to draw up answers to the questions and
to comment factually on the views of environmental groups. The
element of surprise has only limited value at this early stage?
avoid it if possible.
If a group has been active through Steps 1 to 5, it gen-
erally is ahead of the Corps as far as developing a tentative
position on the possible environmental impact. However, the
Corps hasn't begun a careful study of the problem. The Corps'
planning branch has only a rough idea at this time of what the
environmental impact is, and citizen groups are better advised
to be tactful and patient rather than demand an environmental
statement. In most cases, the District office begins seeking
data in Step I, asking opinions or otherwise obtaining inform-
-------
ation of the overall habitat of the area involved. As time
passes and the idea progresses to the study stage (Step 6),
more concrete environmental information is collected. Hope-
fully, a citizen group will continuously supply the District
with their evidence and ideas so that the District office has
an opportunity to respond to each question raised by citizens.
Groups have to get their general environmental ideas and alter-
native suggestions across now before the feasibility study
(Step 6) has been completed and passed to the Division Engi-
neer (Step 7) and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
(Step 8).
STEP NUMBER SIX; INVESTIGATION BY
DIVISION OR DISTRICT ENGINEER
After the public hearings, the Division or District Engi-
neer makes an analysis of engineering, economic and environmental
data and develops various alternatives for solving the problem.
After considering costs and benefits and public preferences
among the alternatives, he decides upon the best plan as he sees
it. Further hearings may be held at this point, either to re-
solve controversy or to inform interested parties of the general
characteristics of the plan.
This step may involve several years of research and planninc
by the Corps. It is usually the most time-consuming of any
particular step in completing a project. Corps official have
emphasized that this step, more than any other, is the best
opportunity for citizens and groups to change a project design.
Actually, much of a group's work has already been done if they
-------
have been involved as previously outlined. However.- in most
cases, citizen groups do1not.become cohesive and interested
until the time of the public meeting (Step 5).
The time required to complete Step 6 is its saving grace. En-
vironmental groups can become organized and effective during this
step. It doesn't take long for an efficient and active group to
lay the ground work in the early steps and catch up to Step 6.
Then citizens can bring their ideas and facts to the District office
with a full understanding of how the idea got started, what the
possible economic and environmental effects are, and what viable
alternatives to the problem are. In short, if a proposal has
reached Step 6, a citizen group can still start without any loss of
effectiveness. We don't suggest waiting until now, but if people
aren't together until this time, there is no better time to get
involved.
In Step 6, the Corps is completing the project feasibility .study
by tying together ideas with facts and figures. This is a tremendous
opportunity for a group to substantiate its own ideas with its own
studies and conclusions. A citizen group should have engineering,
economic, legal, and ecological expertise if it is to cnange tne
feasibility study. Sometimes, sufficient data may be available
for a group to conduct its own research on the proposal. Also
a group should obtain from the Corps the alternatives as they
are finished, then study them and have competent people comment
on them. Or a group may want to do both. In either case, both,-.
the Corps and citizen organizations should keep abreast of each
other's developments and exchange their findings.
-------
In some cases, the Corps, may seek advice from consultants
or hire an organization to do a portion of a study. The Corps
should communicate this fact to all interested parties. Per-
haps a consulting or research firm acceptable to both the public
and the Corps can be hired. This could eliminate the inherent
bias of studies done individually by the Army and citizen groups.
However, most consulting firms are contracted to come up with a
solution that maximizes the interest of the.contractor, so the
chances of obtaining a mutually acceptable party is very slim.
It is during Step 6 that a rough draft of the environmental
statement (or "102 Statement") is formulated by the Corps based
on data collected during the previous steps. As. the project sur-
vey is carried out, various Federal and state agencies are not-
ified and asked to comment on the project plans. These com-
ments and those of cooperating environmental groups are synthe-
sized into a draft statement along with the Corps' own studies.
These "102 Statements" often contain appendices with letters
and recommendations from the various federal and state agencies
with feedback from the Corps. A Corps of Engineers Environmental
Statement* will contain sections under the headings:
1. Project Description
2. Environmental Setting Without the Project
3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action
4. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided
Should the Proposal be Implemented
5. Alternatives to the Proposed Actic.i
* The Corps document for preparing Environmental Statements ;.3
contained in the Appendix as EC 1165-2-98 and ER 1105-2-507.
-------
6. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of
Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-Term Productivity.
7. AnqIrreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
V
Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed
Action Should It Be Implemented
8. Coordination With Other Agencies
These sections include the five points mentioned in Section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. A citizen
group making its own environmental assessment may wish to follow
the above outline, since it will provide not only a thorough
measure of the possible environmental impact, but also a study
directly comparable to that done by the Corps. Hopefully this
would lead to an informal meeting to consider the results of
both studies with a mutually acceptable draft, the end result.
The idea is to get people together, which is an absolute requi-
site to preserving and improving our environment.
While we have been preaching the idea of unceasing cooperation
with the Corps, we should not be so naive as to think that this
is the only way to influence the Corps' environmental statement.
The Corps has to seek the comments of various federal and state
agencies, and a citizen group should ask two questions: How
much influence do we have in the concerned Federal and state
agencies? How can we approach them to maximize our impact?
As a group has gathered information, hopefully it has sought
the data and advice available from such agencies as the Depart-
ment of Interior, Department of Transportation, the state
-------
pollution control agency, state water resources council,
state recreation council, state fish and wildlife service, and
others. An efficient conservation group should not only seek
information, but should also feel confident in giving new
information back to the various agencies. This essentially
answers both questions. By supplying new and valid scientific
information, a competent citizen group gains substantial in-
fluence in an agency and at the same time, it maximizes its
effect since providing pertinent environmental information to
the public is a primary function of many federal agencies.
Citizens should make personal contacts in each agency, both
federal and state, and maintain a constant liaison with de-
pendable staff members who have the time and interest to con-
sider carefully the group views. It is very advantageous to
have an"in" in a strategic position within the various govern-
ment bureaucracies.
-------
RETROSPECT; STEPS 1 THROUGH 6
We have just examined the first six steps of an Army Corps of
Engineers project as outlined in the Corps pamphlet EP-1120-2-1,
and we have included in each step suggestions for fostering an air of
mutual trust and respect between the Corps and public organizations.
We have also tried to demonstrate some of the specific approaches
a group should undertake to have its views included in the Corps'
initial survey study. Each Corps proposal and project is unique
in its economic and environmental impact, hence, this book should
not be construed strictly as a "cookbook" for all Corps projects;
rather, it should serve as a catalyst for new ideas and approaches
citizens can use to insure that all economic, environmental,
and sociological factors are considered in the planning of all
civil works projects.
The first six major steps could be considered the "idea and
hypothesis" stage of civil works projects. Many of these ideas get
no farther - only about 40 percent of all proposals studied are
authorized for construction and only 25 per cent are actually
constructed. Many of the feasibility surveys (Step 6) clearly
demonstrate the economic unfeasibility of a proposal and the
idea is mothballed by the Corps—sometimes for good and some-
times to be reviewed again when there is renewed public interest.
It is in the feasibility survey that ideas are substantiated
or refuted by scientific fact and engineering studies From
Step 6 on, there are concrete economic, environmental, and
-------
engineering facts which can be studied and commented on by
citizen groups. General ideas are difficult to implement once
the initial survey is completed, but facts which explain more
precisely the impact of the project—economically or environ-
mentally—can .be included at any time in the project planning
and design.
PREVIEW; STEPS 7 THROUGH 12
Assuming a project with unresolved controversy will now
proceed toward authorization, a conservation group must con-
siderably expand its base of operations to be effective.
The project plans have been primarily in Corps offices, but
now our governmental system of checks and balances (sometimes
grossly unbalanced) comes into play. The project plans must
pass under the eye of a multitude of Federal state and local
agencies, and the effectiveness of a citizen group in commun-
icating its findings to these agencies is often reflected in
the comments of those agencies on the proposed project plans.
This method of indirect influence has been clearly demonstrated
by the Columbia River Conservation League as a very effective
means of changing or stopping a project. The fact that a
group may have to work through other agencies to get its evi^
dence included in the project plans does not imply reneging on
its relationship with the Corps, especially with the District
office. Cooperation with the District office must continue
at all times. The Corps must be made aware that a citizen group
is actively involved with the- other agencies who are reviewing
the project. There are times when the District Engineer is
-------
not receptive to public input, particularly after he has
spent years studing the project. In these cases the first
logical alternative is to work indirectly through such State
offices as that of the Governor, water resources agency, de-
partment of fish and game, ecology commission, and in the
Federal offices such as Department of Interior and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). An important point for conser-
vation groups to remember is that a State Governor essentially
has veto power over any Federal project planned for his state,
regardless of whether the District Congressmen or State Senators
favor the project. Citizens would be wise to maintain liaison
with the governor's office and the various state offices;
then as a project proceeds toward the Federal level, contact
should be made with the relevant offices within OMB, Department
of Interior, and other agencies. The next alternative is for
citizens to write directly to the Chief of Engineers explaining
that there is an apparent lack of cooperation between the public
and the District office and outlining the areas of conflict.
The Chief usually replies very swiftly to both the District
office and the public to insure total public participation.
Both those alternatives should be used by the public.
Following the completion of the feasibility survey, the
procedural motion of a project becomes increasingly complex.
(See Civil Work Projects flow diagram at end of Chapter II.)
The Corps, state and other Federal agencies are all reviewing
and commenting on the economic and environmental aspects of
the study. However, the issue citizens should be concerned
with*—supporting changing or stopping the proposal—is not
-------
involved. The fact to remember is that environmental groups
have more opportunity to influence the project plans in some
steps (9,10,11) than in others (7 and 8). For example, let's
say that a project survey has just left the District Office
for review by the Division Engineer (Step 7). The Division
Office is the first review level for Corps projects and they
are usually better staffed with environmental personnel than
the District offices. If there are controversies surrounding
a project this is a good place to appeal them, as the Division
can read the plans back to the District for restudies. If the
plans proceed on to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors for review with still controversial issues, citizens
should contact the Board in writing and in person if possible.
The Board of Engineers likes to be considered the "con-
science of the Corps" and will avidly claim that they have,...
"killed more Corps projects than any environmental group any-
where." The Board is a statuatory agency established by the
enabling act of 1902 to review the preauthorization reports
of all projects requiring specific legislation. The Board
has no authority on projects already authorized. They claim
to be immune to all political pressures and therefore completely
objective in evaluating individual projects. Also, Congress
cannot authorize a project without the approval of the Board.
The Board of Engineers will take action on a specific
project for any of the following reasons:
1) a project report is not in accord with
established law or policy. For example,
there were not enough public meetings
-------
or hearings, or if the hearings were held
so long ago that the public opinion has
changed, thus requiring new hearings which
have not been held.
2) a controversy surrounding a project report is
such that it can not be settled in the Dis-
trict by facts alone. This was the case on
the Snoqualmie survey in Washington State
and the Sabine river in Texas.
3) when environmental interests feel local poli-
tics have precluded a fair environmental or
economic evaluation of a project, especially
by state and local governments.
The Board does welcome citizen studies and comments and
will call for restudies and/or new public meetings when they
feel there is genuine public concern. The Board of Engineers
can be a crucial turning point for any controversial project
if citizens get them the facts. However, the Board chooses to
remain somewhat secretive and works primarily behind the scenes
and out of the public .limelight. Perhaps, because.it is relatively
inconspicuous, and it avoids publicity, one-might wonder if the
board is really as apolitical as it claims to be. In any event,
citizens should contact the Board if a project of their concern
has any of the three deficiencies listed above.
Rather than concentrating exclusively on trying to impact
the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in Step 8, a
group should give primary attention to the various state and
local agencies and the governor's office which will review the
project in Step 9. The governor's office, which seeks the advice
of the various local and state agencies and leaders to form a
position, has veto power over any civil works project in the
-------
state and can be a strong ally for either project supporters
or opponents. A governor can intervene in a project at any
stage, while the Board of Engineers can intervene only prior
to authorization (Step 2). In the long run, Step 9 is much
more important than Step 8 as the impact made now within the
state will have feedback until the project is completed, if
it is authorized.
Once the report has been reviewed by the state agencies,
it moves on to Stpe 10, the Secretary of the Army, OMB, and
House and Senate Public Works Committees. A group should care-
fully plan the exact time for contacting these federal agencies.
OMB can't be expected to provide comments on a project if they
haven't seen the Cprps' report, so citizen publications should
arrive at OMB at the same time as the Corps proposal. In this
case, a group should not waste time and effort trying to change
the Secretary of the Army's mind (Step 10) but concentrate on
setting up an effective communications channel with OMB and
the Public Works Committees, both of which are more readily re-
ceptive to public participation. Sending a personal represen-
tative to Washington, D. C. or hiring a lobbyist to make per-
sonal appointments in each agency is a very effective method
of conveying citizen views to key persons.
We have just discussed a short example of a project's motion
through government channels to demonstrate that there are certair
steps and agencies that citizen groups should especially prepare
for. These are steps in which citizens have the best chance to
affect a project plani A group should ask these questions when
i
preparing to deal with a particular governmental agency:
-------
1) What is the function of the agency involved?
2) What criteria do they use in assessing the Corps' study?
3) What particular person or office within the agency will
actually make the review?
4) What kind of data could citizens present to have the
greatest effect?
5) Does the citizen group have enough scientific credibility
to be effective with the agency involved?
6) Is there a point of view opposite that of the environmental
group that should be explained or rebutted to the agency
involved (e.g. the American Association of Railroads
disputing the claimed transportation savings of a Corps'
navigation project)?
If a group answers these questions correctly, it stands a reasonable
chance of being listened to and seriously considered.
As an environmental group is organized and becomes involved in
attempting to change or stop a project, one fact should become
apparent: citizens need to be as economically aware as they are
environmentally aware. Over a period of time, if serious questions
are raised about the economic analysis of a project, a group stands
a better chance of changing or stopping it than if only environmental
questions are raised. However, the economics and ecology of a project
are usually directly related. In more than a few cases, the Corps
has minimized a project cost by failing to include mitigation and/or
replacement cost for environment damage in its project costs. This
raises the benefit-to-.cost ratio and in many economically marginal
-------
projects, this increase may be enough to justify the project
economically. Whether the benefit/cost ratio is 1.5 or 1.01
to 1, the analysis of benefit and costs done by the Corps should
•be studied carefully. If this requires hiring a competent
economist, then one should be hired, or the organization may
have the experienced persons required within its membership.
Factual and valid economic information supplied by citizens
can aid the Corps in future studies of the project and can be
helpful to OMB, which reviews each project's economic anaylsis
in deatail. If a group finds costs that the Corps has over-
looked, every effort should be made to have them included in
the pre-authorization studies.
We shall now move to the pre-authorization steps. Step 7
to Step 12. Again we point out that a citizen group must diver-
sify its approach to affect a project's plans significantly.
Environmentalists must work both with the Corps and with the
various Federal state and local organizations that are consulting
on the proposal, and they must use an economic approach when-
ever possible, as well as an environmental approach.
STEP NUMBER SEVEN; REVIEW BY DIVISION ENGINEER AND ISSUANCE OF
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Division Engineer reviews the report of the District
Engineer and transmits it to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors in Washington, D.C. for further review. The Division
Engineer also issues a public notice to all parties known to be
interested in the investigation, explaining the report and inform-
ing concerned parties that they may present their views directly
-------
to the Board of Engineers. He also announces a place where
the report can be examined or purchased if desired.
Citizens' groups who have made their interest well known to
the Corps of Engineers should be among the recipients of the
Division Engineer's notice. Failing that, such groups may obtain
the report from the Corps office. Conservation-minded organizations
will, of course, want to scrutinize the Corps' findings carefully
to be sure that all environmental and economic aspects of the
proposed project have been given full consideration. When the report
is not satisfactory in ecological and economic areas, such short-
!
comings should be brought to the immediate attention of the District
and Division Engineers, to the Congressmen and Senators, and to
the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Since some projects
have been challenged successfully on legal grounds, citizens' should
also ascertain whether or not all relevant laws are being complied
with including the National Environmental Policy Act .of 1969 and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
An economic evaluation of the Corps,report should have been
prepared by an independent group at this point. Those with expertise
in economics should be available to conservation groups to check
figures, to be sure that all costs have been listed, and to satisfy
themselves that the alleged benefits of the project are realistic.
Absolute accuracy in the citizens' report is as important as
accuracy in the Corps' own report. Economic, legal and environmental
aspects of water resource projects are covered in greater detail
in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 respectively.
-------
STEP NUMBER EIGHT; REVIEW AND HEARINGS BY
THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS OR
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
The Board of Engineers is required by law to review all
survey and review reports of the Corps of Engineers except those
under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission.
The Board or Commission may hold public hearing before making
its recommendations to the Chief of Engineers. As we explained
in the Preview: Steps 7 through 12, citizens' groups can do
much to convince the Board of the need to hold such hearings
by presenting evidence that the report has overlooked impor-
tant environmental, economic, or engineering issues relating
to the project or by demonstrating widespread public concern.
Spokesmen for citizens' groups whould present all available
written statements from their organizations and send copies
to the news media, and to the Board of Engineers preferably
in person. A group which has labored consistently to make its
views known at the District and Division levels stands a
better chance of influencing the Board of Engineers than does
a group formed hastily at this stage in project development.
The Board will not call a public meeting unless it perceives
a definite unresolved controversy. In these instances, it will
carry out its own investigation of the project.
-------
STEP NUMBER NINE: PREPARATION OF PROPOSED
REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND REVIEW
THEREOF BY THE AFFECTED STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
After the Board of Engineers (or Mississippi River Com-
mission) has reviewed the project report, it forwards its re-
commendations along with a statement of environmental impact
and the project survey report to the Chief of Engineers who,
in turn refers these studies to the Governors of the affected
states and to interested Federal agnecies to obtain their views
of the proposed action. Amon^ the Federal agencies often con-
sulted about Corps proposals are the Office of Management and
Budget, the Departments of Interior, Transporation, and Com-
merce, the Federal Power Commission and the Appalachian Regional
Commission the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council
on Environmental Quality. The Governor and Federal agencies
are expected to send their comments to the Chief of Engineers
within ninety days. Final drafts of the environmental state-
ment and project report are then prepared. These final drafts
are public information and should be studied in detail by
citizens. Environmental groups must work in anticipation of
this step, forwarding letters and position papers to their
Governor and Federal agencies before the Board's report is re-
ceived by those offices. Often the State and Federal agencies
have no data other than the Corps' own report on which to base
their approval or disapproval of a project; hence they may
welcome responsible outside studies made by citizens' groups.
-------
The Department of Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality
and the Environmental Protection Agency have primary responsibility
for considering the environmental effects of water resource projects.
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service can. be a particularly valuable
friend to the citizens' group, provided it is well-supplied with
factual material backing the group's opinions. Representatives of the
environmental group may want to make personal contact with officials
in the Fish and Wildlife office as well as with other relevant
agencies.
If any Federal or state agency raises serious questions at
this step, the project may become questionable. This step in the
process is, in other words, an excellent point at which to slow the
whole proposal down to allow a closer look at the problem areas.
Again we stress the importance of keeping in constant written
and verbal contact with the various state agencies concerned with
the project, and the Governor's office. In this step the state re-
views the project and its comments,and recommendations will reflect
the views of the Governor and hopefully the environmental groups
involved.
STEP NUMBER TEN: TRANSMITTAL OF REPORT..
TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
This step has within it several composite motions. First, the
Chief of Engineers receives the comments of the Governor and con-
cerned Federal agencies. He then completes his own report and
submits it to the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary then drafts
a letter to Congress and sends the preliminary draft, along with
the report of the Chief of Engineers and all other pertinent papers,
to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
-------
The Budget Director's responsibility is to determine the pro-
ject's relationship to the President's public works program and
to evaluate the general economic feasibility of the action.
.OMB is, of course, particularly receptive to economic
questions regarding a Corps proposal. Its Water Resource Project
Section will welcome independent studies and letters, but it 'is most
likely to be attentive to calls from personal representatives of
citizens' groups concerned about a particular project. Spokesmen
should identify the individual in the OMB Water Resource Project
section responsible for reviewing the project of their concern and
communicate directly with that person. The Public Works Committees
of the House and Senate probably give greater weight to the ideas
and questions raised by OMB than to any other reviewing agency.
Any economic questions or peculiarities should be brought to
the immediate attention of OMB officials. There is no more efficient
way to stop or delay a questionable project than to question its
economic analysis or otherwise demonstrate that the project will
return less than a dollar benefit for every dollar invested. The
success of the Columbia River Conservation League in halting a
Corps project was a result, in large part, of its ability to
show conclusively that the Corps' economic analysis overlooked
certain costs, and claimed benefits that could not possibly
accrue from the project. Some civil works projects have a
high benefit- cost ratio and are a good public investment
Where large Federal projects are proposed, it is essential that
careful studies be made to assure that all costs have been in-
cluded in the report—such as full mitigation for any fish and
wildlife loss, funds for archeological work on the project area.
-------
and appropriations for developing future recreations areas
and fish and wildlife habitat., While these costs may not
affect the high benefit-cost ratio significantly, they will
insure an effort to replace, as nearly as possible,. what would
be lost with construction of these larger projects. Once a
project has been authorized both the Corps and Congress are
reluctant to include new environmental costs unless clearly
justified. Since there is IK) guarantee that funds can be ob-
tained after authorization (Step 12), a staunch effort should
be made to have them included in the pre-authorization study.
STEP NUMBER ELEVEN: TRANSMITTAL OF REPORT TO CONGRESS
Upon receiving the comments of OMB, the Secretary of the Army
transmits the report of the Chief of Engineers, along with other
pertinent papers and comments (possibly including those of concerned
citizens' groups, if they have been effectively presented) to the
Congress. The Secretary's own evaluation of all data available at
this point determines whether or. not he concurs with the OMB report,
citizens' independent studies, and other materials in his recommenda-
tions to Congress.
Congressmen seeking to provide their districts with the
economic boost of a Corps of Engineers project may try to play down
the negative comments in the Secretary's report to Congress. An
environmental group should know exactly where key Congressmen stand
on the project proposal, and whether they are receptive to environ-
mental or economic questions about the plan. All lobbying efforts
to gain influence should be concentrated upon Congress at this point.
Congressmen and Senators of the area involved should already be
well aware of the project pros and cons as a result of citizen
-------
initiative. Environmental groups would do well to make personal
contact with the Senators or Congressmen concerned or their legislative
assistants. Often staff members are more effective in communicating
citizen views to their boss than a lobbyist - don't demand a session.
with an elected official; if he's too busy, talk with his staff.
Next in importance is to make written and personal contacts
with the House and Senate Public Works Committees. In Step 12,
these committees will hold hearings and determine which projects
should be included in an omnibus bill and which projects should
be voted on separately -
It is our experience that citizen groups do not take full
advantage of the input opportunities offered by the Public Works
Committees. These committees meet periodically to review individual
projects, so obviously it behooves an environmental group to contact
individual committee members. In one instance these members had no
knowledge whatever of a major Corps of Enigneers project that was
still presented to the Senate Public Works Committee for inclusion
in an omnibus bill. If time is short, the more environmentally
aware members should be sought out. They should be presented with
a concise, written report explaining the group's views and the
views of the Corps. As always, the approach should be one of re-
spect and cooperation. In most cases citizen groups will be more
informed than the official or his staff, and they should not be
made to feel they're "dummies," or that the group is a godsend for
saving our environment. Citizens should not continually harangue
-------
staff members for answers or position statements; they've
usually got more than they can do in the time they have. If
the public has made its case effectively. Senators and Repre-
sentatives will be aware of the public views.
STEP NUMBER TWELVE: AUTHORIZATION BY CONGRESS FOR CONSTRUCTIION
QF THE PROJECT
Upon receipt of the Secretary of the Army's report, the
House and Senate Public Works Committees may hold hearings aimed
at formulation of a bill including a recommendation for project
authorization. The Secretary's report may be printed as a House
or Senate document, thereby becoming known as the project document.
Actual authorization usually comes about as part of an omnibus
rivers and harbors bill.
Citizens must keep track of the bill's progress in the
Committee on Public Works. Spokesmen for the group should ask
the Committee's permission to testify at its hearings. The group
representative should be an effective speaker and should present
a short, concise and factual summary of the group's views on a
proposed project. Additional detailed information can be inserted
into the record of the hearings without being presented orally.
Committee members are not usually overzealous about
attendance at hearings. Consequently it will be necessary for
citizen representatives to follow up their testimony with a personal
visit to the Congressman's or Senator's office as in Step 11 prior
to the hearings.
The Corps has by now exerted considerable effort in studying,
planning, and promoting the project, and if negative aspects have
not been thoroughly publicized by concerned citizens, Congress will
-------
probably proceed to authorization with very little ado. In the
case of omnibus bills, many favorable projects may be included
along with a few marginal ones. Rather than, risk losing the en-
tire bill, Congress will sometimes overlook the questionable
projects and authorize the total bill.
Although authorization marks the end of the best opportunities
for citizen involvement to change, delay, or halt a project, it
is by no means the last opportunity. If a project is authorized,
it is assumed to be economically feasible. That is, each fed-
eral dollar invested will return more than that dollar in bene-
fits. The inputs of citizen groups from this point on are usually
limited to engineering or environmental facts. The price has
been set on the project, although many civil works projects over-
run their cost projections significantly. If there is substan-
tial evidence to warrant more study or to change the economics
of the project, it can be done. The project plans will be re-
viewed by OMB three more times prior to construction, and OMB
is always receptive to new and valid economic evidence affecting
a project.
At least two Corps projects have been stopped recently after
construction was well underway. The Cross-Florida Barge Canal,
authorized in 1942 and started in 1964, was stopped early in
1971 with the canal about one-fourth completed. President Nixon
ordered construction to cease several days after the Environ-
mental Defense Fund (EDF), acting in behalf of several citizens'
groups, obtained a preliminary injunction to stop the Corps con-
struction. Gilham Dam on the Cossatot River in Arkansas was
stopped by a judge. Both projects were halted by injunction for
environmental reasons.
-------
There is another alternative citizens can use to provide
for adequate study of the economic and environmental problems of
a questionable project. If the bill has progressed to Congress with-
out adequate funds for comprehensive design studies and mitigation
for ecological damage or replacement of lost recreational resources,
Congress can pass amendments to the bill which will insure these
funds. This would require some strong and influential Congressional
allies to a citizen's group, but it can be accomplished. If this
is the only way of insuring that funds are appropriated, then it
should be pursued to the fullest.
-------
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCTION: STEPS 13 THROUGH 18
STEP NUMBER THIRTEEN: ASSURANCES OF LOCAL COOPERATION
The authorized project now goes to the District Engineer
who will begin work on scheduling and budgeting for design which
may take several years. Local interests are informed that they
must provide the Corps with formal assurances of their cooper-
ation in providing such things as rights-of-way, real estate
acquisition and recreation cost-sharing. Failing such cooper-
ation, the project will be placed on an inactive status. Flood
contol projects may be de-authorized if assurances of local
cooperation are not made within five years of the Corps' re-
quest for assurances.
In recent years, increasing numbers of cities and towns
have refused assurances to the Corps, thus killing for a time,
a number of civil works projects. If a citizens group is
actively involved in local politics it can be very effective
in changing or stopping a project, or if it desires a certain
project, in working to insure that local cooperation is given
to the Corps. The importance of understanding the local polit-
ical climate is obvious in this step and environmental groups
should make a concerted effort to gain a voice in their local
political units.
STEP NUMBER FOURTEEN; REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Funding of a project occurs subsequent to and independent
of its authorization. Requests for planning and construction
funds will be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget,
-------
and if in harmony with the President's budget policies, will
be sent to Congress as part of the President's budget and con-
sidered by the Appropriations Committee.
A group with considerable political and economic expertise
may be able to convince OMB at this point that the project is
not in conformity with the President's budgetary policies or
more simply that it is not economically feasible. Success in
this endeavor will depend on effective personal presentation of
new data and may result in delaying the project for a time. The
Corps of Engineers will consider the views of OMB, but it is
not required to follow its recommendations. OMB's comments are
forwarded to Congress with the Corps' report and other reports.
Congree can pass projects with a benefit-cost ratio less than
one over the objections of both OMB and the Corps.
STEP NUMBER FIFTEEN: APPROPRIATION OF PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
After hearings of the Appropriations Committees of the House
and Senate, which consider the Department of the Army Civil Works
Appropriations, a bill will be reported out of committee and referred
to the full Congress for passage. If passed' by Congress, it will
go to the President for signature. Authority and funds are thereby
given to the Chief of Engineers to initiate detailed planning and
construction of the projects described in the omnibus bill.
Citizens seeking to influence the vote of Congress on a pro-
posed Corps of Engineers project may submit their information and
opinions to the Appropriations Committee and to key Congressmen who
might wage a floor fight on behalf of the concerned groups. Such
floor debates are rare, however.
-------
Like the authorization bill, the civil works appropri-
tions is an omnibus bill - that is, all projects for that year
are lumped together. Specific projects are usually given only
cursory examination by the Appropriations Committees of the
House and Senate, and to most Senators and Congressmen, separate
projects are only names with no adequate description. The Presi-
dent cannot veto specific project appropriations; he can only
sign or send back the entire package. Consequently, a great
deal of lobbying and protest from citizen groups is necessary
to induce the Appropriations Committees to remove a project
from the bill. But this can be accomplished, particularly if
an organization has a synpathetic Senator or Representative on
one of the Appropriations Committees. If this kind of action
is the only alternative, every effort should be made to make
it a reality.
STEP NUMBER SIXTEEN: PREPARATION OF DETAILED PLANS
Before construction of the project can be started, detailed
plansf specifications, and cost estimates are prepared by the
District Engineer and reviewed by the Division Engineer and
Chief of Engineers. Formal assurances of local cooperation
from local interests must be received at this point and approved
by the Secretary of the Army.
This step may take more than two years to complete and
is an excellent opportunity for public participation in up-
dating the engineering economic and environmental aspects.
Corps officials have gone so far as to suggest this would
be a good time for a final public meeting, provided citizens can
-------
put forth useful engineering, economic and environmental facts
and not ideas or generalities. The suggestion has been made
very cautiously, however, as the Corps has by now thoroughly
studied the alternatives and feels it has the best solution.
However, the public should not hesitate to provide any inform-
ation it has discovered, including economic, engineering, and
environmental facts. The Corps is preparing an updated environ-
mental statement and the advanced plans and specifications for
the project. Previous experience has taught them not to over-
look any valid input to the final design of "102 Statement."
The opportunity for significant citizen participation in the
advanced design study has also been emphasized by various Corps
officials. Advanced design studies repeat the planning process
of the best alternative chosen by the Corps. Unresolved issues
can make this planning more involved and responsive to public
sentiment and opinion. The District is allowed to make minor
changes in the project plans without further Congressional
action—this term minor of course is subject to much interpre-
tation. However, the District can be forced into or may recom-
mend major changes which require further Congressional action
and a good place to start is during the annual appropriation
hearings in Washington when the Corps testifies for advance
engineering and design funds. The point to be made here is
that the District does not contact the public as a matter of
course in the advance engineering and design stages. However,
groups can influence and stall the project from being constructed
if contact is made with the District and local governments which
must give the Corps the local assurances.
-------
If a citizen group's main objective is to stop or delay
a project, they should stress any engineering, economic, or
environmental deficiencies that have arisen since authorization.
A project can also be stopped or delayed if citizens can prove,
in court, that there are unresolved ecological controversies in-
herent .in the project. If the public has accepted the fact ..that
the project will be built, it should work with the District
Engineer to insure that proper recreational facilities are de-
veloped and required local funds are provided, that fish and
wildlife habitat replacement plans are the best available,
that areas are included for public use as well as refuge areas,
and that funds will be allocated on a continuing basis for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of the project's re-
creational resources.
STEP NUMBER SEVENTEEN: INVITATION TO BID
Upon completion of detailed plans and specifications, qualified
contractors will be invited to bid secretly on constructing the
proposed project. A contract will then be awarded to the eligible
low bidder for construction of the project in accordance with the
plans and specifications.
As we emphasized earlier, a state Governor essentially has
veto power over any civil works project within his state. This is
one of the few alternatives remaining for citizen groups. The Corps
still must utilize information from the state resources agencies;
therefore, an effective environmental group can work through these
agencies and the Governor's office to delay or stop a project—pro-
vided there is sufficient evidence for doing such. In some cases,
-------
effective action entails publicizing the possibility of legal action
to stop the project, or actually filing suit. Citizens should not
hesitate to seek court action if their arguments are valid and
they are sure they can present a strong case. An environmental
lawyer or a lawyer with experience in related matters should be
hired. Citizens can also contact national organizations such as
•the Sierra Club or Environmental Defense Fund for information on
how to proceed with legal action.
STEP NUMBER EIGHTEEN: CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT
After award of the contract, the successful bidder will begin
construction. Upon completion of the project, Federal, State, and
local agencies determine a final sharing of costs and the proper
agency assumes responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
the facility.
There is one recourse left for the environmental group, if
it feels the project has had a serious environmental impact, and that
is an after-the-fact effort to gain'monetary compensation for en-
vironmental damages which can be proven in a court of law. A law
suit does not, however, prevent or undo any undesirable environmental
effects of a Corps of Engineers project. The opportunity for such
a preventive action is long past, but corrective action is still
possible such as mitigation for fish and wildlife losses or other
project incurred damages. Environmental groups should remember
that they must pay court costs if they lose a suit. In some cases,
they may also be subject to countersuits by project beneficiaries
if they lose a courtroom decision. However, this is the exception
rather than the rule. There are increasing numbers of well-informed
-------
environmental lawyers available to consult citizen groups on the
action they should take in their special case.
A citizen's group can also perform a valuable service by
keeping a careful record of the actual environmental impact as the
project is constructed and operated. Precision measurements of the
real impact are difficult to obtain, but many studies are now under-
way on the post-construction effects of various water resource
projects. These studies will be of great benefit to both the Corps
of Engineers and the public as a reference for future projects.
Citizens should also document their methods of opposition to a
project. If they win or lose, this information will be of value
to other groups—even the same group,when future civil works
projects are proposed.
-------
"SMALL PROJECTS" OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
"Small Projects" of the Corps of Engineers are those water
resources projects which require a Federal expenditure of less
than one million dollars, although local concerns can provide
any amount of additional money to increase the project size.
Usually the local interests provide 50 percent or less of the
Federal expenditure.
The difference between these projects and those of greater
costs is that "small projects" don not require Congressional
action for authorization and are not reviewed by the Board of
Engineers. The project remains within the Army Corp of Engi-
neers. Each year the Corps asks the Office of Management and
Budget and Congress for about $9 million to fund these projects,
and the Corps allocates this appropriation as it sees fit.
"Samll projects" follow the general outline of procedures
explained in the "18 Steps" except they do not go before Con-
gress, Environmental impact statements are also required.
The fact that these projects are small in terms of cost does
not imply their environmental effects are also small. The
Detailed Planning Report (DPR) of small projects should be
obtained by interested citizens and carefully studied to deter-
mine the environmental effects and the appropriate action to
be taken if the environmental impact has not been adequately
studied.
-------
Emergency projects fit under this heading also. These
are primarily after-the-fact projects such as the snagging and
clearing of streams and channels or other emergency measures.
Citizens should keep a careful eye on these operations—of ten
the method of getting to a clogged stream or channel is very
destructive, more so than the actual "emergency" work itself.
It takes a bull-dozer only minutes to change the ecology of a
streambed or riverbank.
-------
If the eighteen steps leading to completion of a Corps of
Engineers project contains any single message for the citizen seeking
to influence the outcome of such projects, it is this: get started
early. A total involvement in meetings, project formulation, and the
use of political lobbying tactics all along the way may bring
desirable results if environmental groups are respectful, but tactful
in the presentation of their case. Government engineers, economists,
biologists, and attorneys should be matched with competent citizen
engineers, economists, biologists, and attorneys. Corps staffers
have made it explicitly clear that they are open to valid factual ar-
guments, but are not at all receptive to emotional, opinionated
rhetoric.
The Corps, the Congress, and the public are all important ele-
ments of the system of checks and balances in the spending of the
taxpayers' money. The citizen can play an important part in the
system by observing all parties carefully, evaluating how well they
are performing their special functions, and providing information and
pressure to encourage them to do better.
If you can't get started early, get started late, but at least
get started. Congress won't soon stop authorizing civil works
projects, nor should citizens stop their attempts to change them con-
structively .
The following two pages are a detailed flow chart of civil works
projects. We have overlayed the "18 Steps" and "102 Statement" points
-------
Local Interest
Congressman
Senate
Public Works Comm.
Appropriations Comm.
House of Representatives
Public Works Comm.
Appropriations Comm.
Bureau of Budget
Sec'y of Army
Board of Engrs, R.& H.
Chief of Engrs.
Division Engr.
District Engr.
Other Fed. Agencies
Governor of State
Other State Agencies
State Resources Agencies
Pres.^J Study funds appropriated
\by.P.L.
E—»
I
3 -5 Complete Study
CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS
(Congressional authorization)
Notes:
1
Initial
each
2. Repoi
-------
Constr. of Project
Pres \louthorized by p' . \ Funds opproprioted
rt. L. ! , s'» for Planning by P. L
Funds appropriated
for Construction
by RL.
Incorp.in
Pres. Budget
Incorp. in
Pres. Budget
tt
Prepare
Design
Memo
Prepare Plans
and Specs.
Notes:
Initial a (additional funds must be appropriated
each year for life of study or construction.
2. Report may be returned many times for revision.
\-
Prepared for Marine Affoirs Conference
and Marine Exchange, Inc., by U. S. Army
EnginePr District, Son Francisco.
-------
Local Interest
Congressman
Senate
Public Works Comm.
Appropriations Comm.
House of Representatives
Public Works Comm.
Appropriations Comm.
Bureau of Budget
Sec'y of Army
Board of Engrs, R.8 H.
Chief of Engrs.
Division Engr.
District Engr.
Other Fed. Agencies
Governor of State
Other State Agencies
State Resources Agencies
o
Constr. of Project ,
Pres ^authorized by pres.l Funds appropriated
I
C IV IL WORKS PROJECTS
(Congressional authorization)
Initial a additional funds must be appropriated
each year for life of study or construction.
2. Report may be returned many times for revision.
Prepared
and Mori
Engineer
for Marine Affairs Conference
e Exchange, Inc., by U. S. Army
District, Son Francisco
-------
and have starred the most crucial steps that citizen groups
should especially prepare for. This flow chart illustrates
the actual complexity of completing a major project - there
are about 105 steps leading to project completion. If this
chart were enlarged considerably, -it could easily serve as a
"strategy board" for environmental groups.
The graph below, illustrating the opportunity for effective
citizen participation, shows the necessity for people to be-
come involved early in project planning, preferably before com-
pletion of Step 6. The solid line shows that the chances for
public input directly to the Corps decreases with time. The
broken line illustrates the opportunity for indirect inputs
to the project plan via the other Federal and state agencies
that review civil works projects. There are essentially two
critical periods for citizen participation: 1) directly,
prior to completion of the initial feasibility study (Step 6),
and 2) indirectly, during the period of preauthorization pro-
ject review by other concerned agencies and the Board of Engi-
neers (Steps 9, 10, 11). Once a plan is authorized, the Corps
of Engineers seldom incorporates any substantial environmental
changes in the project design unless there is sufficient polit-
ical or public pressure or new laws and regulations are involved.
If the pressure is great enough, then Step 16 can be a signifi-
cant opportunity for public involvement, as shown by the graph.
The "idea and hypothesis" stage (Steps 1 through 6) and the
"general engineering, economic and environmental information
input period" can be considered "good" opportunities for citizens
-------
to be effective in project planning. Following authorization
the opportunities can be considered "fair" at best, and most
likely "poor"—even though a group may have some relevant
engineering, economic or ecological data.
Now that we have discussed the planning process of Army
Corps of Engineers water resources projects, it would behoove us
to relate this discussion to several actual situations involving
the Corps and citizen groups. The first case study concerns a
proposed navigation project on 'the Columbia River in Washington
State. It is an example of effective citizen participation before
authorization through indirect methods. The second case study
is that of the well-known Cross-Florida Barge Canal. In this case,
an environmental group was successful in halting construction of
a project that was one-fourth completed. This illustrates the
legal opportunities for stopping ecologically-destructive projects
more than it does actual participation in Corps planning procedures.
Both citizen groups involved—the Columbia River Conservation League
and the Florida Defenders of the Environment—were successful in
attaining their immediate goals. In Chapter III, we shall discuss
a third case study in which the project has been authorized, but
on which construction has not begun because of public opposition
(Allerton Park vs Oakley Dam).
-------
Prej e-cV
OPPORTUN
FOR
EFFECTIVE.
ClTlZESO
Corps ®-f
of
(3e.r«ewr\
ten
projects. TK\* C^ro-pk "is
OA 'tk*- aJH-e^Kpts e>«f ev
To
-------
CASE STUDY
Ben-Franklin Dam and Lock Project and
Extension of Navigation on the Upper Columbia River:
Successful Pre-Authorization Citizen Participation
The Columbia River, the last major river to be discovered
in America, is no longer a river--with the exception of the
57-mile reach between Richland, Washington, and Priest Rapids
Dam. Eleven dams (five constructed by Public Utility Districts,
five by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and one by the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation) have created a series of impoundments
from the Canadian border to the Bonneville Dam near Portland,
Oregon, making the "river1' a series of lakes instead.
In 1932, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors pub-
lished a "master plan" for the Columbia which included ten possible
dam sites. The first evidence of the execution of this plan was
the construction of Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams, both begun
in 1933, and most recently, the completion of John Day Dam in 1968.
That leaves only the 57 miles between Richland and Priest Rapids Dam
in a relatively free-flowing, natural state.
Opposition to this river development over the past 38 years
has been relatively insignificant primarily because of the sparsely-
settled areas involved and because the greatest benefits of naviga-
tion and power supply were realized by the more populous areas and
industries west of the Cascade Mountains. Also, the public was not
adequately aware of the "master plan" of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the procedure by which the Corps obtains authorization,
funding, and completion of a project.
-------
The Ben-Franklin Dam is the last proposed dam on the
Columbia. It is being opposed by a local conservation group on
both economic and ecological grounds, as is the Corps' alternative
plan--a navigation channel through the 57 miles of river. The
approach used by the Columbia River Conservation League (CRCL)
has been successful thus far in delaying the transmittal of the final
feasibility study of the dam and in preventing Congressional authori-
zation of the navigation channel. The multidisciplined, economic-
ecological approach used by CRCL demonstrates that concerned groups
and individuals can introduce their ideas and facts into the
decision-making process of the Corps of Engineers thus saving
public funds and preserving an ecologically diverse environ-
ment.
CRCL was formed in late 1968 on the premise that the funding
of either of these projects would be ecologically unsound and an
unwise use of public money. Since its inception, the League has
been under the thorough and calculating leadership of John Sheppard.
CRCL incorporated a variety of disciplines within its group in
order to deal thoroughly and scientifically with the different
aspects of water resource projects. it also obtained the aid and
support of other environmentally concerned groups before making any
public statements or reports. Many of the individuals in CRCL are
research scientists within the Atomic Energy Commission reservation,
through which the portion of the Columbia River in question flows.
Their fields include ecology, chemistry, engineering, geology, and
aquatic biology, and their expertise is evident in the materials
they have published.
-------
In the case of CRCL, both the dam and channel projects had
advanced to stages (Step No. 9 for the dam and Step No. 10 for
the channel) where successful input of information by a group
would likely take the form of a "conservation battle," typical
of situations in which the public is not concerned about, or aware
of, proposed Corps of Engineers' projects until just prior to
Congressional authorization.
CRCL realized that any local anti-project publicity would
have to come from them since the only local paper and several
regional papers supported the projects. The State's two Senators
had made statements in favor of the dam as had two of the local
Congressmen. CRCL's only ally at the start was a local radio station
which provided free air time for the group's president, John
Sheppard, to present arguments against the dam. (At this time
the dam was the issue and the channel was of secondary importance.)
Letter-writing by the group and individuals within it to all e.lected
officials and concerned agencies was initiated and has continued to
the present time.
On December 7, 1968, the Seattle District Engineer of the
Corps of Engineers office conducted a barge tour of the proposed dam
and reservoir site as a result of questions raised by separate groups
and individuals. Although CRCL was embryonic at this time, it did
manage to construct a "Tour Guide" of the river to point out to
the 48 invited guests the fish, wildlife, archaeological, geological,
and other natural resources that would be lost or damaged if the
-------
project were constructed. Thus, CRCL made its first impact upon
the decision-making process. They had gained the permission of
the District Engineer to present an obviously environmentalist
point of view to many of the local proponents of„the project and
the Corps itself. The local pro-dam paper presented an even-handed
front-page article about the efforts of CRCL to point out the
environmental impact of the dam.
Prior to Congressional authorization, this is where most pro-
jects can be»most effectively changed—on the local level and in the
District Engineer's office. Most Corps projects are the result
of local pressure groups pushing for a project, in this case the
navigation interests on the Columbia River were the primary pro-
ponents. If these local interests can be convinced of the necessity
of considering all costs of a project, more realistic benefit ap-
praisals and the long-range effect of a project on the environment
and the local economy, a much more economically and ecologically
sound proposal can be presented to the Congressional Committees for
initial study funds. At this point in the Columbia River planning,
the primary local supporters and the district office of the Corps
were aware of a well-organized group of concerned citizens who
wished to have their ideas incorporated in the planning of the dam
and reservoir project, to make clear the total economic and
environmental effect.
A short time later, CRCL printed a publication in which they
pointed out the variety of recreational advantages of the river in
its present state and an economic analysis of the fishery resource
of the area. This second publication was aimed directly at providing
an economically feasible and viable alternative to a dam or a
-------
dredging operation. CRCL suggested designating this river sec-
tion a National Recreation Area. Details of CRCL's plan included
road and river tours, an archaeological museum, access to fossil
beds, an atomic energy museum, wildlife observation and ways of
increasing sport fishing and hunting. The proposal was presented
in a way that made clear the economic gains for such an alter-
native. The report stressed both the economic gains and the
fact that this is the last of its kind of wilderness recrea-
tion available in the northwest. CRCL's plan was distributed to
all parties who had indicated interest in the project, and was an
important factor in delaying public release of the Corps' final
feasibility study. The data provided in the CRCL booklet was a
surprise to many people. The stretch of river concerned has been
partially closed to the public since 1943 because of security regu-
lations. A regional TV station received permission to film the
resources of this off-limits area and presented a 45 minute "special"
which was shown twice throughout the state. Public response was tre-
mendous. The real effect of this available information was dif-
ficult to measure , but CRCL felt it had a definite influence on the
State Governor's Office as its official statement concerning the
project followed the basic ideas of CRCL. The State legislature
was--nearly unanimously — sympathetic with the views of CRCL. Several
sporting magazines, along with William 0. Douglas, Supreme Court
Justice, published articles using this data which helped focus
some national attention on the problem.
-------
At this point it became clear that the final authorization
and funding of Ben-Franklin Dam was in doubt. The Corps had
originally planned to release its,final feasibility studies in
early 1969, but in early 1971, they still had not been completed.
Factors contributing to the delay were a marginal benefit-cost
ratio, increasing water resource interest rates and objections
from CRCL. The prime benefactors of this project would have
been the navigation interests on the Columbia from Portland, Oregon,
upriver to Wenatchee, Washington. Seeing the delay of the Ben-
Franklin Dam project, these navigation interests began pushing an
alternative plan, the dredging of a barge channel through the 57-
mile stretch of river and construction of three locks at dams
i
upstream of the channel. In 1969, the Corps released its final re-
port on the channel project with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.99 to 1,
and was ready to present testimony to the Senate Public Works Com-
mittee (joined by the project's most avid supporters, th-e Inland
Empire Waterways Association) asking for authorization of the project.
CRCL was not left.behind when the Corps switched horses.
In April, 1969, the Conservation League published an analysis of
estimated costs and benefits of the proposed navigation project.
Data used to prepare this analysis included not only the Corps of
Engineers proposal, but also the criticism of the proposal raised
by the American Association of Railroads (AAR), and other pertinent
information. CRCL cqncluded that construction of the proposed
channel and locks would not be economically justified, since the
-------
benefit-cost-ratio would be less than 1:1. The League's analysis
of the Corps' report indicated that many errors had been made,
exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the cost of dredging.
CRCL listed 5 points to substantiate this view:
1) Benefits listed by the Corps of Engineers are highly
speculative, inflated, and biased toward navigation.
2) The Corps' population growth estimates for the region
were high, skewing population-dependent benefits higher
than is realistic.
3) The Corps used the old water resource interest rate and
should recompute the benefit-cost ratio using the new
interest rate of 4-5/8%. (The rate has been raised
again' to 5-1/8% making the project even less justifiable.)
4) The Corps failed to consider the impact of the Canadian
storage dams on the proposal. These would cause flow
changes that would drastically reduce the amount of
dredging necessary, or possibly eliminate dredging
altogether.
5) Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses in the Corps' re-
port was negligible, and no serious consideration was
given for the potential fish and game losses.
CRCL severely criticized the 0.99 to 1 ratio and submitted
an analysis of estimated costs and benefits to the Senate Public
Works Committee as testimony against authorization of the project.
This testimony was also sent to all concerned persons and organizations.
In an appendix to the CRCL analysis of the navigation project,
annual benefits and the benefit-cost ratio were computed in several
different ways and spelled out clearly for comparison. Using Corps
data, the ratio was computed using both a 3-1/4% and a 4-5/8%
interest rate. Using CRCL data, the ratio was computed at what the
League considered to be more realistic rates, 5-1/8% and 6%. (The
6% rate was used because, although not currently used in any part
-------
of water resource planning, it is in the opinion of many economists
the one which ought to be used in federal water projects to ensure
proper and economical spending of public funds. It is, of course,
more comparable to rates available from private investments, although
private interest rates are currently higher still.)
The various benefit/cost ratios arrived at through this
methodology were all below 1:1,except the 1.2 to 1 ratio obtained
by using Corps data and figuring the discount of future benefits
at 3-1/4%. Even the Corps presented a ratio of less than 1:1 when
it made its report to the Senate Public Works Committee; figuring
at 4-5/8%, it found the b/c ratio to be 0.99:1.
The type of data presented in the appendix to the CRCL analysis
is essential to any effective opposition to a Corps proposal. A
true b/c ratio cannot be computed without a thorough analysis of all
possible costs and benefits. Suggestions from citizens' groups
will not be considered by the Corps or elected officials unless the
complete breakdown of a recomputed benefit-cost ratio is given and
explained. This has been done by CRCL with the voluntary advice
and aid of competent resource economists.
An important point is illustrated by this third CRCL publica-
tion. To sustain objections to a project that has reached the
national level of decision-making, data presented must conform with
the criteria for determining feasibility on a national scale. Under
the present guidelines, the criteria used are primarily economic.
CRCL's second and third publications were primarily economic analyses
-------
(the second dealing with the Ben Franklin Dam, the third with the
navigation project). This is the most effective means of delaying
or changing such projects after they have reached Washington, D.C.
(specifically OMB) for final authorization and funding. The Columbia
River Conservation League's analysis of the navigation project has
been presented to the various offices of the Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Interior, the Senate and House, the State Governor,
State legislature, local political units, the news media, Public
Works Committees, and perhaps most importantly the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget. All these decision-makers base their final decision
concerning a project primarily on whether it is economically feasible,
that is, whether the benefit-cost ratio is greater than one-to-one.
Arguments which convincingly demonstrate a ratio of less than one-
to-one will receive careful consideration, as did the CRCL reports.
CRCL's navigation project analysis was written in anticipation
of a Senate Public Works Committee hearing on the proposed navigation
channel and locks. It was over a year later that the hearing actually
occurred. In the meantime, CRCL continued developing its arguments
against the dam and channel project, and in July, 1969, published
its fourth booklet describing the impact of the proposed navigation
channel on anadromous fish, wildlife, and archaeological sites.
CRCL stated that the channel project would be almost as destructive
to the local environment as the dam, and would result in the near
total destruction of the present salmon and steelhead spawning and
fishing areas. An annual average of 23,000 chinook salmon and over
-------
11,000 steelhead trout are estimated by CRCL to spawn in this
area, and the numbers have been increasing sugnificantly in
the last 5 years. The Corps' figures allow only for the install-
ation of an artificial spawning channel to compensate for the
loss of 6,300 adult salmon. However, CRCL claimed, there could
possibly be a minimum loss of 34,000 adult fish, both salmon
and steelhead. The Corps made no mitigation or replacement pro-
visions for steelhead trout in its feasibility study and sur-
vey report.
Data for the fish losses were obtained from the Washington
State Department of Fisheries and Game and from research per-
sonnel on the AEC reservation. In addition to the fish losses,
wildlife losses which the Corps has failed to mitigate for were
pointed out by CRCL, including intensive Canadian goose nesting
and rearing habitat and island used by thousands of nesting
gulls, the last such nesting area on the Columbia. Island and
shore habitat used annually by over 200,000 wintering water-
fowl and by hundreds of deer would be almost totally destroyed
by the project.
The Corps' report gave no details as to which archaeological
sites would be affected by dredging, but CRCL claimed that 66
of the 105 well-preserved sites would be destroyed or damaged.
The League stated further that the Corps should develop measures
to avoid damage to the sites and include this cost in the total
cost of the dredging project. CRCL also stressed the fact that
this might be the last chance to explore completely and evalu-
ate the pre-history of the Columbia basin, including the oldest
known human remains on the continent at the Marmes rockshelter.
-------
According to CRCL, a conservative estimate of mitigation for
the archaeological sites would be approximately $50,000 and not
a single dollar had been allocated by the Corp for this cost.
In all its publications, CRCL pointed but obvious and important
omissions of costs in Corps analysis of the project and stressed
the obligation of the Corps to include these factors. If any
of the factors CRCL has cited—such as fish losses or archae-
ological research—were included in the Corps' study, the bene-
fit-cost ration would immediately go below 1:1, even with the
Corps' best figures.
In April, 1970, the Columbia River Conservation League momentari-
ly turned its efforts back to the Ben-Franklin Dam issue by publishing
an analysis of benefits and costs of the Ben-Franklin lock and dam
project and of viable alternatives to the dam. In this report CRCL
again used official Corps reports and other data the group had
collected and again concluded that the project was not economically
feasible. This document was intended to "upstage" the Corps by sug-
gesting feasible alternatives before the Corps did and by supporting
an alternative to the dam. CRCL felt this had an important psych-
ological effect on the District Office of the Corps and on the local
and state political levels.
CRCL contended that either a nuclear power plant or a pumped
storage project could provide more power annually at a lower unit
cost with less environmental destruction than the dam. Such a
straightforward factual argument is difficult to overlook when
presented to the Corps and Congressmen. These were not emotional
pleas, but alternatives which pointed out cheaper, more efficient
-------
ways of producing power and spending public funds without destruction
of unique and valuable recreational areas.
The Conservation League pointed out that the two dams below
the Ben Franklin site overran their original cost estimates by an
average of 24%. At this rate, when coupled with today's inflating
construction costs, the projected cost of Ben Franklin would exceed
the Corps' original estimate by some 55 million dollars. If this
possibility were considered by the Corps or Congress, even to a small
degree, the League argued, the benefit-to-cost ratio would fall
further below one-to-one. CRCL also recalculated the benefit-to-
cost ratios (at 4-5/8%) along the following lines:
Corps estimate 1. 0:1.
Corps estimate plus 20% increase in construction
cost 0.88:1.
Corps estimate plus steelhead loss mitigation 0.90:1.
Corps estimate plus steelhead loss mitigation
AND 20% increase in construction costs 0.80:1.
This demonstrates clearly the economic marginality of Ben-Franklin Dam.
CRCL publications were sent to every concerned or involved
elected official on the local, State, and National levels. Copies
were also sent to many Corps offices on both the local and national
level and to the Department of Interior, OMB, and the Public Works
Committees of both the Senate and House. Every agency with input
into the final decision on the project was made aware of CRCL and its
analyses of, and alternatives to, Ben-Franklin Dam.
The information concerning the proposed dam and reservoir was
somewhat of a sideline issue at this point. CRCL was concentrating
on the navigation proposal and published the data on the dam to let
-------
proponents know that it was well prepared to take issue If the
Ben-Franklin proposal came up again.
By early 1970, CRCL was having a definite effect in swaying the
positions of key officials concerning the navigation proposal. The
state's U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives now declined to
comment for or against and evidently were seriously reconsidering
the feasibility of the project. The booklets analyzing the economics
of the channel and describing its potential environmental impact
received careful scrutiny in the various congressional offices, the
Corps, and OMB, even though these people and agencies were cautious
to admit it. At the time of the public hearing of the Senate Public
Works Committee about the Upper Columbia River Navigation Plan (the
channel and locks), OMB had not released its statement on the
project, so the authorization procedure was stalled. The Secretary
of the Army transmitted the Corps' report to OMB with a favorable
recommendation and a ratio of 0.95 at the new interest rate of
5 1/8%. As far as is known, OMB has never recommended authorization
of a project with a b/c ratio less than unity. The navigation
project was no exception. OMB transmitted its report to the Corps
and Public Works Committees in September, 1971, listing this project
as economically unfavorable. They did not emphasize the environ-
mental deficiencies, only the economic imbalance.
An unfavorable report by OMB is not the end of a project even
with an unfavorable review from the Secretary of the Army. With
-------
sufficient political pressure an unfeasible project may be pushed
through Congress without incorporating OMB's or the Secretary of
the Army's suggestions for improving the project economically or
environmentally. In the end it is Congress who will decide the
outcome of a project.
In November, 1970, the Upper Columbia River Navigation Plan
was excluded from the public works omnibus bill for that year. The
project was not "dead" at that time, but was in a state of repose.
The data CRCL supplied to OMB during its review of the project
was instrumental in causing OMB to consider carefully each aspect
of the project which, in turn, delayed the final decision (un-
favorable) on the project until it was too late to be included in
the omnibus bill.
Up to July, 1970, CRCL could only take real issue with the Corps
on an economic basis, since no environmental statement had been pre-
pared. Finally, on July 15, 1970, the Corps released its draft state-
ment on the proposed navigation channel, several weeks after the Senate
Public Works Committee's Public Hearing. The initial draft was
a mere 2 1/2 pages and seriously minimized the real ecological
damage while emphasizing the inflated benefits. The Washington State
Department of Ecology categorically rejected the draft.
The Seattle District of the Corps submitted a revised statement
to the Department of Ecology on September 16, 1970. This second
draft was considerably more comprehensive, but most of the "statement"
consisted of a project description. The Department of Ecology did
-------
not accept this second draft and asked CRCL to submit its comments.
The Conservation League took exception to the second draft on 13
counts listing each questionable paragraph and explaining in
detail how the Corps was guilty of errors or omissions. At this
same time the Corps' newly established Environmental Advisory Board,
headed by Charles H. Stoddard, contacted CRCL—asking for their
complete evaluation of the project to compare it with that of the
Corps. Before the League could reply, OMB transmitted its unfavorable
report to the Army, all but killing the project for the time. However,
the League submitted its testimony to Stoddard and the Advisory
Board recommended to the Corps that it undertake a complete economic
and environmental review of the project before any further action.
The League's testimony, in part, is given below to illustrate their
method of opposition and their primary arguments:
-------
October 29, 1970
Mr. Charles H. Stoddard, Chairman
Environmental Advisory Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
601 Christie Bldg.
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Dear Mr. Stoddard:
The Columbia River Conservation League (CRCL) wishes to make the
following comments on the Upper Columbia River Navigation Plan.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has recommended against
authorization of the proposed project because it would return less
than eighty five cents for each dollar invested. OMB also said
that if the area redevelopment benefits are excluded, the benefit-
to-cost ratio would be 0.72 to one. If the most questionable
benefits, a pulp plant that has not materialized and the un-acknowledged
expansion of the Alcoa aluminum plant at Wenatchee, are deleted,
the benefit-to-cost ratio would be much lower. OMB suggested that
the Corps present this project to the House Public Works Committee
for information only. The Corps complied with this request. CRCL
has recently learned from Senator John Sherman Cooper that this
project will not be in the Senate's Public Works bill. For all
practical purposes the navigation plan is a dead issue, but the
League would like to express its views on this project with the
idea that they may be helpful to you. CRCL's answers to your ques-
tions are below:
1) Under current water resource evaluation procedures there is
scant justification for the proposed project. The reasons given by
OMB for rejection of this project are essentially the objections
raised by CRCL and others. It should be noted that the Department
of Transportation questioned the validity of the claimed pulp and
aluminum benefits because they "do not now and may never take place."
An analysis of this project by Washington State University economics
professor Cengis Yucel indicated that it would not materially improve
the existing transportation system and that many of the claimed
benefits were quite questionable. As might be expected, the railroads
severely questioned some of the claimed benefits and the assumptions
used to derive them. It is CRCL's opinion that if benefits, such as
the pulp plant and aluminum plant expansion, have been questioned
by reviewing Federal agencies, they should be deleted or at least
investigated further to establish their validity. From communications
with resource economists CRCL is led to believe that the project
cost is first determined and then enough benefits are found to
-------
conveniently make the benefit-to-cost ratio greater than unity.
Sometimes this leads to the inclusion of questionable benefits,
such as those mentioned above, and to absurd ones, such as the
shipment of apples by barge.
CRCL's major environmental criticisms are: There was no specific
plan for spoil deposition. This suggested that indiscriminate
placement of this material might be expected. There were no plans
to investigate or salvage the 105 well-preserved archeological sites
along this stretch of the river. About two thirds of these sites
would be damaged or buried under the dredging spoil. CRCL believes
that these sites should be excavated and investigated by university
archeologists for their scientific value and to protect them from
relic hunters. The cost of archeological investigation, estimated
to be about 450 thousand dollars, should be part of the project cost.
The salmon and steelhead from the Hanford reach of the Columbia River
have an annual value comparable to the claimed navigation benefits.
To the League's knowledge the Corps did no research to precisely
determine the impact of dredging on these fish. It did not make
an effort to determine the steelhead trout population of this stretch
of the river. The only base information on salmon losses was
developed by AEC sponsored biological research. CRCL's evaluation
of fish losses was developed from private communications with AEC
and game department biologists. Since no research was done on the
fish losses due to dredging, there is considerable uncertainty about
the extent of the anadromous fish losses. CRCL believes that these
uncertainties should be resolved long before authorization is sought.
The first statement on the environmental impact of the navigation
plan, required by Section 102C of the National Environmental Policy
Act, was only 2 1/2 pages long. This statement exhibited a profound
lack of environmental awareness and suggested that the Corps did not
take the Act seriously. The rejection of the first statement by the
Washington State Department of Ecology, which we include for your
information, served to emphasize its inadequacy. The second state-
ment indicated that more effort had been expended in its preparation.
CRCL believes that the second statement is also deficient. The
League's comments on the second statement are included for your
information.
3) CRCL suggested early in 1969 that river navigation might be
possible if the flow of the Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam
were regulated to a minimum flow of 75,000 cfs rather than the
present minimum of 36,000 cfs required by the Federal Power Commission,
This approach will be technically feasible after 1975 when the
Canadian Treaty Dams are finished. The Corps has not been receptive
to this suggestion because it would require a change in plans for
the Columbia River hydropower system. With the poor economics of
this project it is doubtful that this suggestion could make it
economically viable.
-------
Another alternative is to allow the last free-flowing stretch of
the Columbia River to remain undistrubed as a scenic river or a na-
tional recreation area. This is what CRCL desires. Such an accommo-
dation would also allow the Hanford reach of the river to contribute
significantly to the Pacific salmon fishery.
5) The League's objections to the navigation project are:
a) The Corps pursued a project that cannot be justified by
current water resource standards.
b) The Corps failed to perform studies necessary to
precisely determine the impact of the proposed project
on the fish, wildlife, esthetic considerations, and
archeology on the Hanford reach of the Columbia River.
This is necessary to determine all the costs that
should be charged to the project and to obtain proper
mitigation for fish and.wildlife losses.
c) The Corps sought authorization of the project without
an acceptable environmental statement.
6) The Corps has not been particularly cooperative with the
League. This is probably due to the uneconomic nature of the
navigation project. Correction of obvious deficiencies would have
made the project even less economic. Perhaps the Corps would have
been more cooperative if the project were truly economic by a wide
margin.
7) The main reason for this controversy is the extent that the
last fifty-seven miles of free-flowing Columbia River should be
developed. CRCL believes that development of the river, as it now
exists, is sufficient. Further development, in terms of navigation
and dams, does not appear to be economically feasible, especially
for the Hanford reach of the Columbia River. The last free-flowing
stretch of the Columbia River between Bonneville Dam and the Canadian
border should remain minimally disturbed so that future generations
of Americans can marvel over this mighty and beautiful river. In
contrast the Corps views this River almost exclusively in economic
terms. To the Corps the Columbia River is a river highway and a
source of hydropower that must be maximized to the last foot of head
and to the detriment of fish, wildlife, archeology, esthetic, and
scenic considerations.
The Columbia River Conservation League hopes that the comments above
will be helpful to you. If you have further questions, please contact
the League.
Sincerely,
John C. Sheppard, President
-------
In the spring of 1971, CRCL was preparing a proposal to
designate this much of the Columbia River as a National Recreational
Area or have it included in the Scenic Rivers system. However, the
struggle is apparently far from over. At this time, the Corps has
been reviewing and updating its plans to build Ben- Franklin Dam.
Also, the Inland Empire Waterways Association has as its number one
priority the authorization of the navigation channel.
Throughout the pre-authorization debates, the Corps was well
aware of the marginal economic stature of the navigation channel.
This would explain their reluctance to include any additional
project costs such as steelhead mitigation or archeological salvage
which would further lower the benefit-cost ratio. Although the
Corps denied the fact that steelhead spawn in the project area and
that there would be any archeological damage, serveral groups and
agencies disagreed. It is the Corps' duty to seek and utilize the
advice of other governmental agencies in their project planning.
The Corps failed to do so in this case. It also failed to realize
that its staff people are civil servants, appointed to serve the best
interest of the public. It is hardly in the best interest of the
public to spend one of their dollars and return them no more than
eighty-five cents for that dollar.
The crippling blow for the navigation project came September 23,
1970, in a letter from Casper W. Weinberger, Deputy Director of OMB
to Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army. OMB concluded that
benefit-cost ratio, with area redevelopment benefits, computed at an
interest rate of 5 1/8 percent, was 0.85. Without area redevelopment
-------
benefits the ratio would be 0.71. OMB also had ". . .serious
reservations regarding some of the basic assumptions that an
aluminum plant at Wenatchee, Washington would undergo significant ,
expansion by the year 2030 and that a pulp mill would be built by
1980 at Wenatchee." Neither the aluminum plant nor the pulp in-
dustry has any future plans for expansion or development in that
area. Obviously OMB was correct in questioning these assumptions,
as was CRCL.
In the last sentence of the letter, Weinberger states, "...
in view of the fact that annual costs exceed the average annual benefits
as reported by the study and because of the above-stated problems,
authorization of the proposed project would not be in accord with
the program of the President."
The "coup de grace" for either the dam or channel could come
with the inclusion of the river in the Scenic Rivers systems or if
it is set aside as a National Recreation Area. This would virtually
eliminate any chance of a dam or channel altering the present
ecosystem.
The State of Washington was undergoing a period of mild de-
pression and high unemployment during 1970 and 1971. One short-term
solution would be to bring as much federal money into the state as
possible, particularly public works projects such as the channel
or the dam. In view of the high unemployment rate, the decision
to drop either or both of the projects on economic and environmental
grounds becomes more difficult for the politicians. The basic
point, however, is that there are a number of economic methods to
-------
alleviate the slight depression, but only one way of insuring a
diverse and ecologically sound environment on this portion of the
Columbia River—don't dam it or dredge it. CRCL intends to continue
its efforts to stop the Corps and navigation and power interests from
doing either.
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Describing the Columbia River case study at length, demon-
strates how deeply involved a citizen group must get to affect
civil works projects and shows that a group's plan of action
must have long-range goals (establishing a National Recreational
Area in this case) , but remain flexible enough to change course
at a moment's notice (from opposing the dam to opposing the navi-
gation channel) without losing its effectiveness. We hope this
particular case shows that a group can become involved at a
late stage (Steps 9 and 10) and still have an effect, even to
halt authorization.
We need to answer some specific questions about the League's
action in relation to the "18 Steps" and the navigation channel:
1) During which step or steps did CRCL have the most impact
and why?
2) Did CRCL and the Corps cooperate and fully exchange information
as we have stressed?
3) Were CRCL's studies competent enough to be compared with
the Corps studies?
4) Which approach (economic or environmental) did they use?
Which would have been most effective?
-------
1) Which step or steps did CRCL have the most impact on and
why?
By the time the League got involved, the navigation proposal
had progressed to Step 10. Since it got no farther, CRCL made its
greatest impact during Step 10, specifically in OMB. But there are
more subtle ramifications of the overall effect of CRCL, going all
the way back to Step 2 (the support of concerned Congressmen).
The League's data on the economic analysis of the Corps was
very likely a primary reason for OMB's rejection of the project. CRCL
disputed specific alleged benefits (the pulp mill and aluminum plant)
as did OMB. CRCL also lobbied, in person, in OMB to explain to both
the man reviewing this project and his supervisor, the economic
disparities and how the environmental omissions (fish and wildlife
losses) would directly affect the benefit-cost ratio. OMB was rather
"gentle" in rejecting the proposed project as they did not include
any of the environmental costs that should have been included by the
Corps.
The League was equally as effective on the state level (Step 9),
gaining the support of the Washington State Department of Ecology,
the Governor's office, and the state legislature. In the event the
project had been authorized, it likely would have run into a stone
wall at the state level, thanks largely to the studies of CRCL and
their effectiveness in communicating their findings to the proper
state agencies. The state as a whole was opposed to the project on
both economic and environmental grounds.
-------
The League was successful in getting the State's two
Senators, Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson, and the district Congress-
woman, Catherine May, to essentially withdraw their previous .state-
ments, of project support (Step 2). During the .Senate Public Works
hearings (Step 11) none of these officials supported the project,
but they were- "sitting on the fence" waiting for'QMB's report to
Congress before taking a position. This was quite an accomplishment
considering the seniority and civil works influence of these three
legislators.
CRCL did not have any striking effect on any of the other
Steps, although they tried unceasingly to cooperate with and supply
data to the District Engineer (Step 6). Even today, the District
has incorporated very few of the facts or suggestions CRCL pre-
sented them. The local interests (Step 1) are still pro-channel
and undoubtedly will support any future attempts to seek authorization.
2) Did CRCL and the Corps cooperate and freely exchange
information as we have stressed?
The answer is clearly no! Of all the agencies the League
encountered, the Corps was the least sympathetic or helpful. However,
this may be somewhat justified in that the League came into being
just before authorization procedures and its goal from the start
was to stop the channel and preserve the river. The primary alterna-
tive that the League offered to the Corps was to do nothing—an al-
ternative they probably disliked very much since they had spent
considerable time and money on planning and were very close to seeing
the navigation project a reality. The League did say a possible
-------
alternative existed if the Corps would study the impact of the new
Canadian dams on the river levels and flows.
CRCL had to deal with the Corps by indirect methods—through
OMB, the Corps' Environmental Advisory Board, and the state agencies.
The Engineers were obviously under tremendous pressure from local
groups, particularly the navigation people, to get the project
authorized and therefore had to omit costs that would have lowered
the benefit-cost ratio so much that even the proponents would
have taken a second look. The League was careful not to waste its
time on the Corps District office, and as pointed out previously,
they spent their time much more effectively working indirectly in
other offices.
3) Were CRCL's studies competent enough to be compared with
Corps' studies?
Yes! The Washington State Department of Ecology, OMB, the
American Association of Railroads, and the Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Advisory Board all used CRCL data in questioning the
economics and environmental impact of the channel as the Corps
presented it. Obviously, the League's arguments were better sub-
stantiated since the navigation project was halted.
4) Which approach (economic or environmental) did CRCL use?
Which would have been most effective?
Which approach is most effective depends on the particular
situation. In this case, the channel was marginal economically
and had not been authorized. The environmental impact had also been
-------
grossly neglected, but the decision-making process had reached
the federal level (OMB) so CRCL concluded the most effective way to stop
the project under the present guidelines would be to dispute the very
shaky economic analysis. This they did successfully. The League
did not overlook the environmental arguments, and had the project
been authorized, they were prepared to seek an immediate court
injunction to stop the project on the grounds that it did not
conform to the policies of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Throughout this case study we have indicated where specific
actions of the League fall into the "18 Steps". Clearly, the League
had more effect than in just Step 10 as we discussed in Question 1.
Also, the actions the League took were not necessarily in order of
the "18 Steps" but were taken as the need arose. Citizen groups
must plan ahead, but at the same time be prepared for any unknowns
which are bound to arise in civil works planning. It should be
evident that various steps overlap each other in both time and the
appropriate action necessary.
-------
CASE STUDY
THE CROSS-FLORIDA BARGE CANAL:
SUCCESSFUL LITIGATION AT THE 11TH HOUR
If our emphasis in this book has been on the
importance of beginning citizen action early, well before
the authorization of a Corps of Engineers project, we must
qualify our advice by adding, for those who find themselves
opposing a project already authorized and perhaps even under
construction, that it still may not be too late until the
last load of soil is removed, or the last ton of concrete
is poured, or the last floodgate is closed. The contest
will be tougher and less cordial, but if citizens are
convinced that a project is unjustified on environmental,
economic, or legal grounds, it is worth fighting. The
Cross-Florida Barge Canal was believed by its opponents to
be deficient in all three areas, and its construction was
halted in January, 1971, amid great controversy. The three
essential ingredients in this success story are:
1) extremely thorough and effective citizen
action by the Florida Defenders of the
Environment;
2) successful litigation handled by the
Environmental Defense Fund;
3) message from President Nixon,
-------
The Cross-Florida Barge Canal was authorized by
Congress (with only a one-vote margin, interestingly enough)
in 1942. However, wartime priorities made the appropriation
of construction funds impossible, despite the fact that
part of the justification for the canal, according to members
of Congress, lay in the belief that it would help to protect
shipments of Texas oil from Nazi submarines. The money was
finally appropriated in the early 1960's, after several
economic re-evaluations, and work began on February 24, 1964,
amid fanfare and in the presence of President Johnson.
At the time of authorization during World War II,
there were no plans or specifications for the canal except
for those contained in a letter from the Chief of Engineers
and recorded as House of Representatives Document #109,
June 15, 1942, which said in part that the canal would cause
"no damage to lands as the ground-water conditions along
the route of the waterway would be unchanged." Many years
later, that statement was to return to haunt the Corps as
lawyers for the Environmental Defense Fund argued successfully
that documented damage to the area ground water supply
constituted a violation of the 1942 authorization.
The route selected for the canal was one of several
studied by the Corps. Often referred to as Route 13-B, the
canal path followed the Withlacoochee River for a short distance
from Yankeetown on the Gulf Coast, continued for a long stretch
along the Oklawaha River (changing it from a meandering
wilderness waterway to a straightened, shallow canal with
-------
locks and impoundments) and joined the St. Johns River in
eastern Florida, following it to Palatka and on to the
Atlantic Coast.
The long delay between authorization and construction
occurred mainly because the project was not found to be
economically feasible until 1958, when the cost/benefit ratio
(computed with an interest rate of 2 5/8%) was purported
to be 1.05 to 1.0. The American Association of Railroads
challenged the canal's navigation benefits, and the Corps'
next evaluation (issued in 1962 and partially based on a study
which they hired Arthur B. Little, Inc. to do) showed reduced
navigational benefits. However, the reduction in navigation
benefits (which would have made the project infeasible) was
now offset by the inclusion, for the first time? of flood control
and land enhancement benefits. The interest rate used in the
new study was again 2 5/8%, and this time the benefit/cost
ratio came out at 1.17 to 1.
In 1963, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture
released an inventory of American rivers recommending the
Oklawaha for preservation as a wild and scenic river:
This river is of sufficient size and unique
character and should be included in any system of
wild rivers. It is felt that this outweighs
any other possible functions that have been
proposed for the general area.
The Corps, however,- went ahead and began construction
of the canal in 1964. By early 1966, the public had seen the
-------
first locks, reservoirs, and routing of the Oklawaha River
become a reality. Detrimental effects upon the environment
were visible. Governor Burns held a public meeting to discuss
the canal. Attendance was high and the arguments were many
and varied. Among the impacts noted and feared by conserva-
tionists were:
Rapid growth of aquatic weeds (notably the
water hyacinth) in the Rodman Reservoir.
Eventually, it was predicted the weeds would
reduce desirable fish populations and make
the claimed recreational benefits impossible
to achieve. Indeed, by 1970, the following
sign appeared at the Rodman Reservoir:
CAUTION.1
FLOATING DEBRIS AND UNDERWATER
OBSTRUCTIONS - OPERATE BOAT AT
SAFE, SLOW SPEED - NO WATER
SKIING PERMITTED IN RESERVOIR
Wildlife losses. Desirable species of fish
were expected to thrive for a few years, until
the water hyacinths, submerged weeds, or
algae in the shallow, slack-water reservoirs
choked them out of existence.
Loss of the Oklawaha River and its unique
valley as a wild river system of great beauty.
Pollution of the aquifer due to porosity and
leakage in the canal.
EFFECTIVE CITIZEN ACTION:
FLORIDA DEFENDERS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, INC.
Apparently, the opposition of conservationists
was never seriously considered by members of Congress
(especially not by the Florida delegation, which supported
the canal to a man). In 1969, the opponents to the canal
decided to reorganize. It was at this point that the fortunes
-------
of the environmentalists began to change from bad to good -
not by an act of magic, but by lots of hard work, organization,
widespread participation, and undying persistence.
The' Florida Defenders of the Environment was
formed in July, 1969. William M. Partington, Assistant
Director of the Florida Audubon Society, took a leave of
absence from that organization to serve as president of the
Florida Defenders of the Environment. Arthur Godfrey later
agreed to serve as Honorary Chairman of the group.
The most valuable and extensive work of the Florida
Defenders of the Environment was the publication of a detailed,
115 page book entitled Environmental Impact of the Cross-Florida
Barge Canal with Special Emphasis on the Oklawaha Regional
Ecosystem. Completed in iMarch, 1970, the book takes a
scholarly look at the regional environment in several specific
studies contributed by geologists, .ecologists, biologists, and
hydrologists. From the beginning, the FDE has had a close
working relationship with specialists on the faculties of the
various colleges, universities, and research institutions
in the state. This has enabled, them to speak with authority
on the environmental impact of the canal. After examining
the local environmental features, the book goes on to summarize
the history of the Barge Canal and then to discuss the
environmental impact the canal has, and is expected to have,
on the Oklawaha Regional Ecosystem. Then Secretary of the Inter-
ior Walter J. Hickel issued a report on the Barge Canal later
in 1970, and in it he referred frequently to the FDE report and
-------
recommended a 15-month moratorium on construction to allow
for further study. indeed, the FDE study has value which
transcends the Barge Canal controversy; it might serve as a
valuable model for groups studying other Corps projects.
Copies may be obtained from the Florida Defenders of the
Environment, Box 12063, Gainesville, Florida, 32601.
A contribution to the organization will help to defray the
publication and distribution costs.
FDE wisely inserted a "Summary of Findings" and
"Recommendations" at the very beginning of the book.
They are as follows:
-------
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Cross-Florida Barge Canal now being constructed by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers has been studied from the viewpoints of
geology, hydrology, ecology, economics, land-use planning, anthropology,
and environmental quality. The results of these studies are presented
in this report. The following is a summary of the principal findings
and resulting recommendations.
GEOLOGY:
1. The presence of solution holes and fracture zones near
project structures makes it likely that there will be
problems of porosity and leakage, and that pollution of
and hydrologic changes in the aquifer will occur.
2. The location of the canal locks and the dams on or very
near the Oklawaha River fracture zones introduces the
risk of earthquake damage to these facilities. The history
of Florida earthquakes is not reassuring in this respect.
3. Mineral resources in the vicinity of the barge canal are
meager, being mostly bulk materials for local use. There-
fore, it is unlikely that construction of the canal would
result in greater utilization of these resources.
HYDROLOGY:
1. Water supplies in drought periods may be inadequate for
canal operation without extensive additional pumping
facilities.
2. Because the summit pool connects freely with the ground
water of the Floridan Aquifer any pollution of the pool will
enter the aquifer and flow to natural discharge points.
3. Some pollution of the summit pool and the Floridan Aquifer
is inevitable because of nearby residential or industrial
development, leakage from barges, and turbidity resulting
from construction.
4. Major pollution from accidental spills of oil, herbicides
or toxic materials is predictable in the long run of barge
operation. These pollutants in the Aquifer may damage
water supplies of communities nearby and impair the unique
recreational qualities of Silver Springs and of whatever
sports fishing the canal impoundments might afford.
-------
5. Oklawaha River water which will be back-pumped to the
summit pool may accelerate solution of limestone in the
summit reach because of its different chemical characteristics,
6. Excessive and possibly uncontrollable leakage of water
from the summit pool to the lower pools is a distinct
possibility.
7. There is little doubt that the canal would produce an
overall decline in the quality of surface water in the
system.
8. Flood control benefits claimed for the canal-project
appear highly dubious.
ECOLOGY:
1. Most of the Oklawaha regional ecosystem (see Figure 1) is
still unimpaired, and it is the only large wild area
remaining that supports the full spectrum of plant and
animal life native to north-central Florida. Destruction
of this unique natural region by the proposed canal is un-
justified and hopelessly uneconomic in terms of long-run
social needs.
2. Experience in Florida has proved conclusively that shallow
bodies of impounded water (such as the Rodman and Eureka
Pools) trap nutrients and hence are subject to rapid over-
enrichment and invasion by masses of water weeds which are
difficult and costly to control. Crushing forests into the
bottom, as was done in the Rodman Pool, merely speeds and
compounds enrichment processes. These processes will
quickly reduce, and ultimately destroy, most recreational
and fisheries values of the impoundments.
LAND-USE PLANNING:
1. Controversy about the proposed barge canal emphasizes the
need for long range regional land-use planning. No such
planning has yet been done in this region and no agency now
exists to do it. To introduce major environmental changes
(such as the barge canal) in the absence of an overall land-
use plan is utter folly-
ECONOMICS :
1. The discount rate used in calculating the cost-benefit ratio
of the canal is unrealistic. If realistic interest rates
were applied, the supposed benefits of the canal would no
longer exceed the cost.
-------
2. In calculating the benefits of the canal, both the amount of
traffic which It was assumed that the canal would carry and
the freight savings per ton mile appear to be unjustifiably
inflated.
3. Little evidence exists to support the view that the canal
will actually bring the enhancement of land values shown as
one of its benefits.
4. Results in completed sections of the project suggest impair-
ment rather than enhancement of potential recreational values
in the region affected by construction of the canal. There
is little evidence to support Corps of Engineers figures on
recreational benefits claimed for the proposed canal.
5. If the canal did compete effectively with other forms of trans-
portation, the resulting losses incurred by these transport
agencies would necessarily be passed on to the public in higher
rates. These represent an additional cost of the canal not
considered in computing the cost-benefit ratio.
6. Successful operation of the canal depends to a considerable
degree upon the completion of the Intracoastal Waterway from
St. Marks southward along the northwest coast of Florida. The
need for, and cost of, this "missing link" waterway is not con-
sidered in calculating the costs of the proposed canal.
7. In view of these and other facts reported in the economic sec-
tion of this'report, we believe that in spite of the amount
already invested, an impartial economic restudy of the-project
would result in its rejection as unsound, on a purely economic
basis, without any consideration of the environmental values
to be lost.
EXISTING CONDITIONS;
1. The sections of the canal system already completed have
seriously disrupted portions of the natural ecosystems of the
lower Oklawaha River and the Withlacoochee River. The river courses
and flow have been modified. Natural forests in the flood plains
and vicinity have been destroyed over extensive areas. A debris-
choked reservoir, heavily invaded by exotic water weeds, has been
created in the Rodman Pool area of the Oklawaha system in par-
ticular. Fisheries values have been impaired. The wild quality
of the environment in these areas has been drastically reduced.
Nevertheless, much of the Oklawaha River and its valley still
remain unimpaired.
-------
2. With cessation of further construction and expenditure of
funds to remove downed timber and other debris from the areas
affected, and with proper pollution control measures in the
watershed, it is expected that with time even in the damaged
areas the natural environments would recover, the wild quality
of the area could be regained, and the ability of the region
to supply high quality outdoor recreation would be restored.
OPERATION OF THE CANAL;
The three locks already built are of a size being criticized as
antiquated in other barge canals which the Cross-Florida Barge Canal is
supposed to complement. To replace these locks with larger units in
order to accommodate large, unbroken tows of barges would probably prove
uneconomic. This barge canal will be too shallow for the newer trans-
Gulf barges and for super-vessels carrying numbers of smaller barges.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that further expenditure of Federal funds for
the construction of the Cross Florida Barge Canal be halted and
that no further state funds be expended toward completion of the
canal.
2. We recommend that the authorization extended by Congress
in 1942 for the construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal be re-
scinded.
3._ We recommend that the lands along the canal right-of-way in
the vicinity of the Oklawaha River to which the Federal government or
the state of Florida now hold title be deeded or leased to the United
States Forest Service or other appropriate agency for recreation and
other appropriate multiple-use management. We further recommend that
a portion of the area suited to such purpose be designated a Scenic
River and be included in any wild and scenic rivers system.
4. We recommend that the Rodman reservoir be drained immediately,
and that Oklawaha River be returned to its natural free-flowing con-
dition from Silver River to the St. Johns River.
5. We recommend that the hydric hammock and adjacent forest
communities destroyed and flooded when the Rodman Pool was created
be carefully tended back to their original composition, organization,
and zonation. This restoration will proceed rapidly in the Florida
climate and will be well advanced in ten to twenty years.
6. We recommend that a regional environmental planning council,
established in accordance with existing Florida statutes, consider the
needs of conservation, environmental protection, recreation, and de-
velopment throughout the Oklawaha Regional Ecosystem.
7. In accordance with plans to be developed by the planning
council, we recommend that the Corps be authorized to construct in
the completed western portion of the project those features required
to make the existing canal and other water bodies more useful to the
residents of the region and of the nation.
8. We further recommend that in future projects, benefit-cost
analyses be conducted by an impartial agency not involved with project
construction, and that full consideration be given to ecology and en-
vironmental values in the planning and evaluation of such projects.-
9. To avoid difficulties in future projects, we recommend that
all authorized public works be started within five years of their time
of authorization, and if not completed within ten years of their
original authorization date, that a full restudy be accomplished.
Failure to comply with these conditions should result in withdrawal of
project authorization.
-------
10. We recommend that official public hearings be held in a location
conveniently close to any proposed public works project within a year
previous to authorization and within a year previous to initial funding
in order to evaluate all evidence and to decide whether initiation or
continuation are in the public interest. This is necessary in view of
the rapid environmental, economic, and social changes currently being
experienced in the United States.
-------
Other activities undertaken by the Florida Defenders
of the Environment include:
* Sending a letter to President Nixon signed by
over 150 scientists asking for a moratorium on
construction of the canal.
* Serving as a clearinghouse for information on the
Barge Canal for the benefit of students, concerned
citizens, the press, federal agencies, political
candidates, state legislators, national conservation
groups, Congress, and the White House.
* Encouraging a land-use study for the Oklawaha region
as an alternative to the Canal, using professional
planners in its preparation.
* Making public appearances on TV, radio, and before
citizen groups to explain the controversy and present
both sides.
* Conducting candidate's poll on conservation issues
and the Barge Canal.
Most of these down-to-earth chores have been
performed by volunteers, but of course there have been costs
associated with them. FDE has sought funds through the
memberships of several local and national conservation organiza-
tions, while working to keep its expenses at the minimum
required to do an effective job of fighting the Barge Canal.
-------
LITIGATION BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
The Florida Defenders of the Environment also
provided valuable scientific backup for the suit filed by
the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EOF) against the
Corps aimed at obtaining a permanent injunction to stop
construction on the Barge Canal. FDE is also named as one
of the plaintiffs in the suit.
In its brief, the Environmental Defense Fund argued:
It is the basis of Plaintiffs' case that Defendants'
activities must be lawful and authorized not only by
the Act of July 23, 1942, but by the entire fabric
of law by which Congress has circumscribed and directed
the activities of Defendants with regard to environmental
matters. Any other conclusion would immunize from the
mandates of Congress those agencies and officials
who have the greatest potential for preserving, or
destroying, the environment.
EDF described the status of the Barge Canal
construction in 1970, and asked for a preliminary injunction
halting further work until the Corps complied with all
relevant laws:
Construction did not commence until 1964. Since that
time, Defendants have constructed both Eureka and
Rodman dams (though Eureka Dam has not yet been
closed), filled Rodman Reservoir, and completed
St. Johns lock below Rodman Reservoir and Eureka Lock
at the Eureka dam site. In terms of physical length,
about one-sixth of the canal has thus been completed.
More than fifty miles of the canal route, including part
of the Oklawaha River, are still substantially
undistrubed. Consequently, about one-fourth of the
total project, including locks and dams, has been
completed.
-------
In requesting a maintenance of the status quo, EOF claimed
that the Corps was in violation of the following laws:
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
83 Stat. 852, particularly Section 102, requiring
an environmental impact statement. Plaintiffs argued
that the clearing and filling of the Eureka Reservoir
site was a "major Federal action significantly
affecting the environment," and therefore could not
lawfully be carried out until a 102 statement was
prepared and approved.
- The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C.
661-665, requiring consultation with State and Federal
wildlife agencies and a minimization of damage to fish
and wildlife resources.
The canal authorization, Act of July 23, 1942,
56 Stat. 703, which, EDF claimed, authorized only
"construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal in
a manner which does not affect the ground water
supply of the area."
On January 15, 1971, Justice Department lawyers argued for
the Corps in support of its motion to dismiss EDF's case before
Judge Harrington Parker in U. S. District Court, Washington
D. C. Its claim of soveriegn immunity and lack of standing for
the environmentalists were not accepted by Judge Parker, who
then went on to grant the preliminary injunction requested by
the plaintiffs. Indeed, it appeared to observers in the court-
room that day that the Corps of Engineers had been so confident
of success in its motion for dismissal that it was sadly unpre-
pared to rebut the case presented by the Environmental Defense
Fund. In its opinion, the Court said, "The inexorable conclu-
sion is that there is a strong probability that further construc-
tion and related operations as now planned might irreparably
-------
damage marine and plant life and a primary source of
drinking water for the State of Florida. For this there would
be no adequate.remedy at law."
INTERVENTION BY PRESIDENT NIXON
The Cross-Florida Barge Canal was brought to a halt
just four days after the granting of the preliminary injunction.
President Nixon, weighing the widespread opposition to the canal
and the impact of the preliminary injunction against the
dwindling justification for continued construction, called for
a stop to all work on the canal.
Proponents of the canal have been dismayed by the
termination of work on the Cross^Florida Barge Canal and have
urged the President to reconsider. The Florida Canal
Authority, in particular, has disputed Nixon's right to
stop by executive action a project which has been authorized
and funded by Congress. The Canal Authority has filed suit
.against'the Secretary of the Army and the Jacksonville
District Engineer, Colonel Avery S. Fullerton. Recognizing
that even if Nixon stands firm, subsequent Presidents may
rescind his order, the Environmental Defense Fund is continuing
to press for a permanent injunction. The legal wrangling
involved in both the EOF suit and the Canal Authority's counter-
suit may delay the final outcome of the Barge Canal controversy
for some time, but as of now the project is at a standstill.
The case of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal is,
indeed, an example of what the combined forces of citizen
action, legal action, and political action can accomplish--
even at the eleventh hour.
-------
CASE STUDY DISCUSSION
The Columbia River Conservation League and the Upper
Columbia River Navigation Plan have not come into the national
spotlight as a crucial environmental issue, as have the Cross-
Florida Barge Canal controversy and to a lesser degree the Allerton
Park issue in Illinois (discussed in detail in Chapter 3). This
may have been the result of a combination of factors: 1) the'project
has not been authorized by Congress; 2) the League chose to pursue
a behind-the-scenes political-scientific approach; and 3) the
single, local newspaper was avidly pro-channel and for the most part
ignored the League's efforts. In the two other case studies,mentioned
above, one had been authorized (Oakley Dam) and construction had
begun on the other (Cross-Florida barge canal). Rightfully so, the
public became very outspoken, attracted comprehensive press coverage,
and at the same time developed factual economic and ecological ar-
guments against each of the two projects. They have been successful
in attaining their goals: 1) to stop further construction of the
barge canal, and 2) to seek an injunction to stop any construction
of Oakley Dam as the Corps has proposed it. However, the "success"
of the three groups involved with these projects might be measured
in varying deg'rees. The least successful, ecologically:, would
be the attempts to stop the Florida barge canal. The canal has
already been one-f°urthcompleted and has resulted in significant
economic losses and environmental damage. Further construction
was stopped by the President. Oakley Dam has been authorized for
-------
construction, and the Corps has spent considerable time and money
on the design of the project and various alternatives. The Com-
mittee on Allerton Park has filed suit to stop the entire project
before construction. The Upper Columbia River Navigation Plan was
halted before authorization, and attempts are now being made to
include the river in the Scenic Rivers system or to have it
designated a National Recreational Area. To date, each environmental
group has accomplished what it set out to do. Now the question is:
What is the basic goal of all environmentalists? It should be
to take action in such a way so as to insure all future planning
fully considers the economic, social, and ecological impact of
each project, and of all projects as a whole (summation effect).
The goal will be to prevent the authorization of projects that can
be shown to be economically, socially, or ecologically unjustified.
This, in no way, oversights Florida Defenders of the Environment
and the Committee on Allerton Park. In fact, legal actions at
the last moment may actually be more effective in making the Corps
and their proponents take a serious look at the present criteria for
evaluating water resource projects. Further construction of the
barge canal has been stopped, and if the Allerton Park suit is
successful, Oakley Dam will not be built. However,- as mentioned
before, the Upper Columbia River Navigation Plan is still the number
one priority of the navigation interests, despite its being temporarily
"killed" by OMB. Perhaps the best way environmental groups can
measure their success is to try and obtain the best sd'lution that is
possible, or more bluntly, get all you can, while you can. In this
respect, all three of the above groups have been equally successful.
-------
CHAPTER III
THE HARD CORPS AND OUR SOFT ENVIRONMENT
The Army Corps of Engineers possesses the capability of alter-
ing our environment in many ways, but the many conflicts which have
arisen between the Corps and environmentally-concerned citizens
have centered largely around the Corps' plans for public works
projects. Citizen opposition or support has generally been expressed
most strongly by the people who live in the immediate area of a
proposed corps project. In recent months, however, growing national
awareness of environmental problems has given rise to a more wide-
spread interest in Army Corps projects. Nationally-based conserva-
tion organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the
Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth, have challenged the Corps
in its project planning in an attempt to minimize environmental
damage.
Just what does the Corps do to our environment? Most commonly
it builds dams designed to hold back flood waters and to provide
electricity, navigation, usable water, and recreational facilities.
The Army Engineers also build and improve navigable waterways, by
carving canals out of the countryside or by widening, deepening, and
straightening existing streams, rivers, and lake channels. Urban
flood control projects are frequently constructed by building levees
and channels. And what is the environmental impact of these
activities? Let's look at some facts and examples. We must make
clear that these events do not occur in every reservoir, but have been
known to be results of impounding water, channelizing, and lining
and straightening streams.
-------
Dams and Reservoirs
The building of a dam is a complicated task. The impact of a
dam and reservoir upon a particular habitat is also complicated,
and in many cases the effect is drastic. Each dam creates a dif-
ferent set of after-effects, but we shall look at a variety of
possible effects depending on the habitat in which the dam is
constructed. From an ecological standpoint, reservoirs can be
grossly divided into warm water impoundments and cold water impound-
ments. We will not attempt to describe the ecosystem differences of
each, but citizens should be aware of the fact that there are some
basic ecological differences between civil works projects on cold
streams and on warmer streams. Cold water impoundments are relatively
infertile, biologically. Reservoirs with warm waters will usually
support a much greater biomass and correspondingly have a greater
rate of biological productivity than cold water reservoirs. However,
the impounding of water, whether warm or cold, usually increases the
rate of organic and inorganic deposition, therefore limiting the geo-
logic life of the body of water.
The Corps' first task in preparing to build a dam is to purchase
the land to be used for the dam and its approaches, the reservoir
behind it, arid some additional acreage immediately below it for the
floodway. The condemned land may have been valuable farmland (as with
Tuttle Creek Dam in Kansas), or a unique river valley or canyon. Be-
fore flooding, the reservoir land is usually cleared of all buildings
and foliage. Sometimes the trees are harvested for lumber purposes,
or cut and burned on the spot. Sometimes they are crushed with a
giant masher and left to sit at the bottom of the reservoir.
-------
Occasionally they are left standing (Milford Reservoir, Kansas). When
the latter two courses are followed, the wet, decaying trees at the
bottom of the reservoir can release a certain amount of nutrients
into the water and resultant plant growth may eventually clog the
surface and cause navigational, recreational and health problems, as
well as hastening the eutrophication ("enrichment" of the basin) process.
During eutrophication, nutrients in the water cause a rapid
growth of simple plants, such as the toxic blue-green algae and
noxious filamentous species. During periodic dieoffs these plants
consume oxygen at a rapid rate, causing a drop in the oxygen level
of the water and a replacement of some of th-e asual forms of life
with the fungi, bacteria, and sludge worms which survive best in
anaerobic (no oxygen) environments.
There are reservoirs in which trees have purposely been left
as part of the lakes' fish and wildlife management program. Tree
stumps, snag piles, brush piles and standing trees provide shelter
for some species of game fish such as bass and crappie. Flooded
woods have also been used by geese and ducks for resting and wintering
areas .
In some cases, reservoirs can also serve to improve water
quality significantly- Under reservoir conditions bacteria are
adsorbed by suspended particles and removed from the water by
sedimentation. A bacteriological sample stored for a long period
will decrease quite rapidly. A five-day reservoir storage period
may result in as much as a 90 per cent coliform reduction between
the influent water and the effluent water. The coliform group of
bacteria serve as an index to the presence of human fecal material in
the water.
-------
Following construction and closure of the floodgates, the
reservoir rises slowly and steadily. The height of the "conservation
pool" (the normal height of the reservoir) is determined during
project planning, but the reservoir actually fluctuates throughout
the year. In the spring, the combined effects of thawing snow and
frequent rains may cause the reservoir to rise, often exceeding the
conservation pool level and spilling over to the "flood pool." The
duration of reservoir flooding varies from one year to the next; when
it is lengthy, it can cause a permanent change in the habitat it covers.
During the summer months, drawdowns of a reservoir often occur to
augment the decreased downstream flow to help prevent potentially
hazardous growths of bacteria and algae. The reservoir recedes
visibly, sometimes to the point of leaving boat docks and swimming
areas high and—well, if not exactly dry, then muddy. The mudflats
are usually unsightly, sometimes foul-smelling and seriously impair
the recreational use of the reservoir.
The effects of a fluctuating water level (drawdown) are more
sigmificant ecologically than aesthetically, however. The lowering
of the water level with the accompanying decrease in water volume
and surface area affects all parts of an aquatic habitat and all
components of the plant and animal communities that inhabit the water.
If the lake bottom is allowed to dry up during a drawdown period, an
abundance of oxygen becomes available in the bottom soil, the process
of decomposition is speeded up and greater quantities of potassium
and phosphate are released in the soil. The dry bottom is very
fertile and may develop a growth of terrestial plants. Prolonged
winter and early spring drawdowns will insure a luxuriant growth while
late summer and fall drawdowns allow little time for plants to establish.
-------
Rooted aquatic plants may fluorish under drawdown conditions; lowering
the water level is not, in most cases, an effective method of control-
ling rooted aquatics. Raising the level, may, on the other hand,
control the spread of certain aquatic plants.
Drawdown concentrates motile invertebrates and small fishes, and
exposes them to new environmental conditions, especially increased
predation. Predation and the stranding of fish in the littoral (near
the shore) zone as the water recedes may significantly reduce the
populations of smaller fish without reducing the numbers of predatory
species, such as bass. This results in a selective culling which
is more specific for, say sunfish, than for bass. The bass, in turn,
may have a higher survival rate the following year and become overpop-
ulated and stunted. On the other hand, the sport fishery may be
increased markedly, if the bass are harvested.
Drawdown can have a significant impact on the management of
fish and wildlife and recreation. Winter drawdowns have been shown
to limit the abundance of rough fish (by limiting their food supply)
without serious injury to game fish populations thus maintain fish
species considered more desirable by fishermen. Flat areas on a
reservoir bottom are ideal for making seine hauls, if cleared of stumps
and debris. During low water conditions seines may be used to harvest
concentrations of carp, buffalo or other rough fish for commercial
purposes or to improve the population of game fish. Reservoirs with
the greatest water-area fluctuations contain the largest percentage
(by weight) of predatory species, which includes many of our game
species. However, the man-made cycles of water levels in these lakes
are not closely related to the natural cycles of rainfall and runoff,
and it may take years for the fish population to adjust to the new
cycles.
-------
Drawdown only occurs in man-made impoundments. However, natural
lakes are subject to annual fluctuations also, although these
variations are generally more predictable and less harmful ecologically
than the drawdowns imposed .by man. If_ the dam is necessary, then
the management of the-pool level should include full consideration
for fish and wildlife and be managed to maximize.the benefits from
these two resources. -=0ne fact is abundantly clear—the Corps must
cooperate more fully with fish and .wildlife interests than it has in
the past and provide .research money to study the effects of various <•
types of drawdown on reservoir ecosystems. The knowledge of reservoir
management is minuscule, relative to what,we need to know to manage
man-made lakes properly. In addition to efficient management of
individual reservoirs, there is a critical need to improve the
management of entire river basins containing a number of man-made-'
lakes. River flows and drawdowns must be coordinated over the entire
basin if the proper management of recreational and environmental
resources is to be a reality. New techniques of systems analysis and
computer programming should be developed to implement this coordination.
This does not imply seriously curtailing the demands of the power,
navigation and agricultural interests, but only asks that the Corps
and various river basin commissions give equal consideration to the
aesthetic and environmental resources on our waterways.
In an undammed stream, the water flowing downstream carries with
it a certain amount of soil and nutrients which contributes to the
fertility of the land it covers during natural flooding. Indeed, the
high fertility quotient of the Mississippi Delta and the Nile Valley
-------
in Egypt are well known, and are directly attributable to the spring
floods of these rivers. A dam, however, is a barrier to downstream
flow. When the water is delayed in the reservoir, the silt and
organic matter in the water settles out. The build-up of silt and
detritus in a reservoir can be rapid, and it may decrease the depth
of the reservoir and cause a reduction in the species diversity of
fish, with a corresponding increase in the rate of eutrophication.
At the same time, the farmland downstream receives decreasing amounts
of soil nutrients and therefore suffers a loss in natural fertility.
The farmers must make up for the loss in fertility by increasing
their use of organic and inorganic fertilizers. During heavy rains
these fertilizers are washed into the river—causing new and more
diffuse water pollution problems.
Although the natural flooding of downstream lands is impeded by
a dam, a "controlled" flood sometimes occurs. When spring runoff
and rains cause the reservoir to fill to capacity, the Corps sometimes
allows a greater flow through the floodgates, causing flooding
downstream. The result may be flood damage on the very land the
dam was built to protect. In Illinois, farmers along the banks of
the Kaskaskia River below the Carlyle Dam have filed claims against
the Corps for damages to their crops after excessive flooding four
years in a row. The Carlyle situation is exceptional however, in that
the Corps made a serious error in estimating the downstream channel
capacity. The Corps predicted a capacity of 9000 cubic feet per second
(cfs) while the actual capacity was only 4000 cfs.
Even when the downstream land is not agricultural, the change
in flood patterns invariably alters the ecosystem of the area. In
-------
developed areas, the changes may cause structural damage. Sometimes
the construction of a flood control dam encourages development of
the flood plain, so that when the area does flood, dollar damages
are higher than before the dam was built!
The construction of a dam also affects the local microclimate,
although the change is usually insignificant and difficult to
measure. The reservoir may cause a greater frequency of fog, higher
humidity, and increased rainfall, depending on the general climate
of the area concerned. The winter air temperatures in the immediate
reservoir area are likely to be slightly ameliorated.
In shallow reservoirs, the temperature of the water rises as
the still water absorbs the sun's heat during the summer months.
This rise in temperature may have a profound effect on the fish
population of the reservoir. While many species cannot survive, the
carp, which is tolerant of low dissolved oxygen content and relatively
warm water, has in some cases become the dominant species. As
the number of species is reduced, the reservoir ecosystem becomes
more simplified, less stable, and increasingly eutrophic.
A warm water reservoir may have the potential to become an
important commercial fishery. Increasing numbers of midwest and
southern lakes and ponds are being managed for the express purpose
of producing the greatest poundage of fish-per-acre possible to
market commercially. These fish species include carp and catfish.
However, there is little justification for developing an entire civil
works reservoir for such a single-use objective. A commercial.
fishery could be better justified as a portion of the benefits of
a man-made lake. A possible exception in the multi-purpose
-------
requirement of civil works projects may be found in the Anadramous
Fish Act (Public Law 89-304) as amended by Public Law 91-249,
May 14, 1971. The law allows the construction of a reservoir for
the sole purpose of regulating river flows for anadramous fish
species (species which mature in saltwater and which are born and
spawn': in freshwater). Such reservoirs might significantly improve
the salmon and steelhead runs in such rivers as the Umatilla in
Oregon and the Yakima and Walla Walla in Washington as well as
improving water quality and recreation. These projects would
require cost-sharing by local interests and coordination with the
Bureau of Reclamation and Soil Conservation Service to insure that
the additional water supply is used only for the fish and not for
irrigation or other purposes.
A dam may act as a formidable barrier to fish in their annual
migrations. In some instances the Corps has provided the fish with
a route to their spawning grounds by building fish ladders. During
construction at the Lower Monumental Dam in Washington State the
fish were very ineffectively netted and transported around the dam
by truck! The problems of fish passage are most acute on the west
coast where dams have significantly decreased the populations of ana-
dromous fish (salmon and steelhead) with a resulting decrease in
the economy of the sport and commercial fisheries. Fish passage is
not a one-way problem. Equally .important to allowing adult salmonids'
and other migratory species upstream, is to allow their progeny to
migrate downstream. Approximately one to three per cent of the eggs
deposited by anadromous species at the spawning grounds actually
survive to return and spawn in two to four years. Under natural
-------
conditions only about ten per cent of those hatched successfully reach
the ocean, with the rest being lost to predation during their down-
stream migration in freshwater. When the effects of predation in the
reservoir and the tailrace below the dam are combined with the mortality
in passing through the turbines and floodgates of a dam, the odds
against fingerling survival increase. The Corps is actively pursuing
solutions to these mechanical problems, but with more careful plan-
ning the solution could have been determined before authorization of
these dams, not after construction.
A serious problem that has existed for years, but that has only
recently come under careful study, is that of nitrogen gas super-
saturation in the Columbia and Snake River impoundments. The problem
is most acute during the spring runoff period when water must be re-
leased over the spillways of the numerous dams. As the cold water
cascades down the spillways, it mixes with air which becomes "entrained"
or attached to droplets and particles of water. If the tailrace
section below the spillway is sufficiently deep, water with the
entrained air will plunge to the bottom and will be exposed to the
pressures of water at that particular depth. This increase in pressure
forces oxygen and nitrogen into solution with the water, often to
levels of 140 per cent of saturation. (Levels over 120 per cent of
nitrogen are lethal to salmon and steelhead.) These two gases are
picked up by salmon and steelhead via their gills. If the fish remain
at the deeper depths (over 20 feet), there are few problems. However,
as the fish approach the fish ladders at these dams, they must surface.
As they surface, the water pressure decreases, and the nitrogen,
which is not used up in metabolic processes, comes to . the surface of
-------
the fish as it (the 'nitrogen) moves toward an equilibrium. The out-
ward appearance is a fish covered with small silver bubbles of N2.
These bubbles occur on the skin and gills and around the eyes. The
eyes of fingerling salmon and steelhead have actually popped but
because of the higher concentration of nitrogen in the blood of the
fish. In 196'8 and 1969 the dieoffs of upstream migrants —
as a result of nitrigen supersaturation--were sometimes estimated
to exceed 50 per cent of a particular run of fish.
Severe mortality has also been observed in the downstream
migrating fingerlings. The problem is compounded by the fact that
there are virtually no unimpounded sections on these rivers in the
Pacific Northwest. Water flows over the spillways right into
another reservoir with minimal aeration below the' tailrace. The
Corps has suffered badly in the public relations department as a
result of the nitr6gen mortalities. It is currently studying the
problem, but again we cannot help but observe that if anyone had had
the foresight to predict the effect of changing pressures on the' C^
and No distribution, a solution could have 'been found before 'author-
ization. Whether or not the "gas bubble disease" is' eliminated in
time to preserve the Columbia and Snake River fishery remains to be
seen. The problem'of N2 supersaturation may not be limited to the
Northwest, but in theory could occur wherever there are large, cold
water streams and high dams.
A dam is also a barrier to migrating land animals that have
used the river flood plain for centuries. A large reservoir such as
Dworshak Dam in Idaho may deprive local wildlife of the wintering
areas and migration routes they need to maintain the present population,
Men and boats also meet the barrier; if the river was once a favorite
-------
Whitewater canoeing area in its natural state, that sport is lost
forever where the river is flooded. Canoeing and kayaking are
increasingly popular sports, and citizens participating in them
should make every effort to get the Corps to include mitigation for
these lost recreation areas as a project cost.
Perhaps it is the irrevocability of dams which makes them so.
worthy of careful forethought. Dams and reservoirs, like the living
things nearby, have life expectancies or spans of useful existence.
But what happens when that lifespan expires? Indeed, the reservoir
can be drained and concrete dam broken up (this is very unlikely),
but the river will probably never return to its original preimpound-
ment condition.
To our knowledge, the Corps has done very little research on what
they will do with those reservoirs that are rapidly filling with
silt except to build bigger dams. They haven't planned ahead of the
50 or 100 year useful life span of some of these lakes. This is a
serious problem with very significant economic and environmental im-
plications. One question is: what does one do with a dam that no
longer serves its purpose, or a reservoir that has filled in and is
nothing more than a flooded marsh? If there were floods before the
dam, the potential flood danger with silted-in reservoirs is much
more severe. It will be very difficult to relocate a dam as most of
the sites have already been taken. What long-range effect will a
system of dams have on downstream geologic deposition and soil
fertility? Will the concentration of nutrients and pollutants in a
reservoir affect the local water table, water supply or soil fertility?
-------
These are critical questions that can be answered by studying the
existing projects in hopes that more realistic estimates of the true
economic, ecologic, and sociologic impact of future dams can be
obtained if_, in fact we need any more dams at all. Planners must
weigh more carefully the environmental benefits against the environ-
mental costs of a proposed dam, and try to make an intelligent judgment
as to whether the environmental benefit/cost ratio is really a positive
one. The ecological equilibrium is sensitive, and a mishandling of
the parameters involved in dam construction can only increase the
present imbalance of nature, our economy, and our society.
Navigation Projects
While the gross environmental impact of a dam evolves over a
period of years, the effects of a dredging operation come about almost
immediately. When the Corps deepens a channel or builds a canal, the
spoil taken from the bottom must be put somewhere. Often, in a large
lake, spoil is dumped indiscriminately back into the water away from
the channel, resulting in the complete destruction of the habitat
involved. If, on the other hand, the spoil were dumped on land, it
may cause the destruction of valuable marshes, swamps, archeological
sites or other riparian habitat where unique plant and animal
communities abound and where many forms of aquatic life spend a part
of their life cycle.
The positive and negative ecological effects of a dam are
generally measurable and relatively easy to differentiate. The
ecologic impact of navigation projects, particularly channelization,
can be categorized almost entirely as negative. Positive environmental
effects are quite rare. By their very nature, most navigation
projects are ecologically destructive. They involve primarily
-------
digging, dumping, straightening, and lining. None .of these operations
lends itself to environmental conservation, preservation or enhance-
ment. If and when the new Water Resources Council guidelines for
land and water resources planning are adopted, navigation projects
may become more difficult to implement, in view of the multiobjective
approach of the guidelines.
In certain cases, the Corps will glaim environmental
"enhancement" from some navigation projects. Cape Cod Canal has
allowed the uock bass to expand its range considerably thus making
it more readily available to sport fishermen. The harbor improvements.
in Tampa Bay were made in such a way as to increase the circulation
of water in the Bay and to create islands for wildlife with the dredge
spoils. There are other projects in which similar attempts are
being made to expand the habitat of certain desirable species. However,
we feel the Corps is wrong in claiming that these types of purely
mitigative action are really environmental "enhancement."
For those navigation projects that are already constructed, or
undoubtedly will be constructed, the Corps should do everything
possible to replace lost habitat and maintain species diversity, but
this should be called mitigation rather than "enhancement." No one
can validly say that increasing the range of rock bass by constructing
a navigation canal is ecological "enhancement," because no one knows
the long-range effect of this ecosystem change. The same applies to
Tampa Bay. We are not saying there is no value in thes.e mitigative
efforts, in fact, the increase in recreation from such Corps efforts
is doing much to give many Americans a greater appreciation and
-------
understanding of natural systems (even though they have been altered
by man). What the Corps and public must not lose sight of is the
fact that man can no longer destroy and change our natural environment
and then "enhance" it. Man must learn to work within natural systems
in such a way that it will not be necessary to mitigate or "enhance."
With our present economy and water resource technology this is not
possible. We must have a new economic and water resources development
philosophy.
There are many geologic ramifications in most navigation
projects, particularly on inland rivers. Channelization decreases
the surface area-to-volume ratio of a stream and increases drainage
velocities. If the free-flowing area downstream from a navigation
project is not capable of handling the increased volume during the flood
season, flooding can be more severe than in the past and important
changes can occur in the shape and location of the riverbed. An
increase in the runoff velocity of a stream results in a decrease
of the availability of that water to the ground water table.
Ground water supplies can be decreased, the depth of wells increased,
and water shortages during periods of drought can become more
severe. Increasing water velocity also increases the ability
of the river to move silt, gravel and larger stones. In fact,
by merely doubling the velocity of a river, its transporting
capability is increased four to eight times. This can develop
areas of severe erosion and deposition downstream and can cause a
marked increase in turbidity levels and a significant decrease in
water quality.
-------
From its source to its mouth, a stream follows the path of
least resistance. As flow and volume fluctuate, these paths
change; thus the stream's course and streambed cross-section fluc-
tuate also. These hydrodynamic aspects of rivers have often been
overlooked by the Corps and have resulted in significant overruns
of dredging costs. In the case of the Upper Columbia River Navi-
gation Plan, the Corps failed to consider the highly unstable con-
dition of the gravel streambed and the ability of a river this
size to move these gravels. Its plan for dredging covered a period
of four years which would be followed by a small amount of annual
maintenance work. Comments from geologists and hydrologists
who have studied the area thoroughly indicated the river
could possibly move enough gravel annually to make heavy
dredging a full-time operation,. The gravel beds underlying the
river are 200-300 feet in depth—no amount of dredging could
create a hydrodynamically stable streambed. The Corps' study
completely overlooked this aspect and the economic and environmental
implications thereof. Any river in its natural state has its
particular dimensions as a result of geologic processes which evolve
toward an increasingly stable hydrodynamic condition. Man-made
perturbations will only result in the river trying to adjust back
to its former,- more stable condition. Man cannot geologically
improve either on the natural ability of a stream to carry water
to its destination efficiently (cost-wise), or on a stream's
natural capacity to provide rejuvenation to ground water supplies.
A stream does these two things as best as nature knows how, and it is
free.
-------
The possible damage to a stream's ecology as a result of
dredging is very significant. Disturbing a stream's bottom
can release vast quantities of silt and sand which are deposited
downstream, virtually destroying the former habitat. In many
streams the downstream impact on game fishes can be disastrous.
Silting can asphyxiate the eggs and fry of salmon, steelhead,
walleye, catfish, sturgeon and many other species. If dredging
occurs annually during the spawning and incubation stages of fish
development, it is conceivable that the entire population
of a species could be eliminated. Anadramous fish return
every four years to spawn where they were hatched. If the eggs
and fry were destroyed for four consecutive years, that
particular population could be considered extinct. Where
there are existing salmonid spawning grounds, dredging should
be avoided or programmed so as to avoid covering the spawning
gravels. Once a bed is covered it is useless for salmonid repro-
duction. Warm water species that are accustomed to higher
turbidity levels (as in the Midwest) may be less adversely
affected by dredging operations. However, the possible impact
should not be overlooked in any particular habitat, whether it's
warm or cold water.
In the planning of navigation projects where dredging
is required, conservation groups should demand inclusion of
specific plans for the deposition of spoil to minimize the environ-
mental impact. Sometimes, the Corps has deposited spoil indis-
criminately in the water and on land. Plans should include
specific measures to avoid damage to fish and wildlife habitat,
archeological sites, and riparian habitat in general. Dredging
-------
in estuaries should be scrutinized to avoid destruction of
unique freshwater and saltwater ecosystems. There are several
methods of dredging available including suction dredging
and shoveling. Depending on the biomass, geology and water
quality of the area involved, one or the other method may be
more suitable ecologically.
A possible positive effect from shallow estuary dredging
has recently been discovered. The polluted ooze so often
found in brackish waters has been found to make excellent bricks
for construction purposes at roughly one-half the cost of con--
ventional bricks. The added benefit of removing pollutants from.the
-------
estuary's bottom could result—as well as cheaper construction
costs. - However, there is evidence which indicates that dredg-
ing polluted ooze may release heavy metals and pesticides into
the water which had settled in the mud. The net ecological
effect would probably be negative.
The water quality of a navigable waterway may be degraded as
a result of its use by commercial vessels. If the commerical
traffic envisioned as a benefit of the navigation project occurs
as planned, then the banks of the river, lake, or canal may be-
come a significant industrial site, crowded with businesses,
warehouses, storage depots, and the like at terminal facilities.
There operations are necessary accoutrements of commerical de-
velopment, and cannot be considered bad with a jerk of the con-
servationist's knee. But as with a dam, the effects of a navi-
gation project must be considered carefully. The Corps—with
the help of the Congress and the public—must decide whether
the project is economically, ecologically, and socially justified.
Urban Flood Control
Individual urban flood control projects are relatively small
in size of expenditure and in their environmental impact when
compared to most reservoir and navigation projects. But as the
major dam sites on our rivers are used up and the nation becomes
more and more urbanized, the Corps spends more of its efforts and
dollars on urban flood control projects. They are very numerous,
and if one looks at the impact of the sum of these urban projects,
the ecological implications can be very signigicant. A hypo-
thetical case might illustrate this principle best.
-------
Fickle River flows for 100 miles from the Appalachian Mountains
through the Midwest into San Francisco Bay. (Urban flood control
happens everywhere.) It has minor spring flooding annually,and
severe flooding can be expected once every 12 years on the average.
The severe floods cause extensive damage in 25 of the 50 small
communities along its banks. The other 25 sustain consistently
minor damage. A coalition of town councils from all 50 towns have
asked the Corps to do a study to find the best solution to ending
their flood problems. The alternative that the Corps offers is to
construct rectangular, concrete-lined channels where extensive damage
occurs. For each of the 25 towns involved this will-'amount to an
average of 1.5 miles of concrete channel to protect each town. Where
minor damage occurs,an average of 1 mile of levees with channel-
clearing and straightening will be constructed. There will be a
total of 37.5 miles of'concrete channel and 25 miles of levees and
straightening. The Corps plans to complete the project over a
20-year period. The benefit-cost ratio of the separate projects is
3 to 1 on the average, and 3 to 1 for the comprehensive plan.
Obviously, each individual 1.5 or 1 mile project would be dif-
ficult to dispute on environmental grounds unless a unique resource
(such as a waterfowl nesting area) was involved. The b/c ratio seems
to make the project for each town highly justified. However, the
most important aspect to study may not be each small channel or
levee, but the impact of the implementation of the entire project
(the summation effect). Of the 100 miles of river, two-thirds of it
-------
(67.5 miles) are going to be either concrete lined or straightened
and diked. Citizens should ask such questions as: What effect
will this have on the ground water table? What will happen to the
remaining unchanged 32.5 miles during a heavy flood? Can the un-
altered stretches handle the increased volume and velocity? What
effect will the more rapid flow of water downstream have on
water quality, water supply, irrigation, and recreation? What are
the possible effects on the river and Bay ecosystems? What are the
possible effects on local agricultural practices? There are many
more questions that should be answered in view of the particular
region and watershed involved. This idea of studying the gross
environmental effects of entire river basin projects has been too
little pursued by both the Corps and citizen groups, but beyond a
doubt is a necessity in all future planning.
The only significant work available at this time concerning
flood control projects of the Corps and our environment is a study
completed by Rivkin/Carson, Inc., 3039 M St., N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20007. This booklet is entitled "Achievement of Environmental
Quality in Flood Control" and is available at the above address.
Rivkin/Carson, Inc. is a firm involved with planning and research
for urban development and was contracted by the Corps to conduct
a case study and:
1) "To develop a framework for flood control project formulation
which respects environmental quality."
2) "To suggest procedures that generate an understanding of_
the environmental elements and forces at work, and to elicit
and establish environmental objectives."
-------
3) "To suggest practical methods for planning and
designing projects which ensure the attainment
of environmental objectives."
The Corps' View of the Environment
Despite some recent improvement in relations between the
Corps of Engineers and the conservation-minded community,
there remains a basic philosophical difference which is
difficult, at least for the present, to bridge. The Corps is
committed to the idea of maximum development of our water resources;
that is, in response to what they view as the desires of the
public, they seek to "harness"--or sometimes to "enhance,"
"improve," "develop," or even "unlock"—the waters which
flow through our rivers and streams. To leave a river pristine
is to waste it, according to this mode of thought. The Corps
often sees itself as "moulding the environment for man," which
is precisely opposite of what our human philosophy should
be concerning our environment. In considering various alter-
natives for project plans, the Corps puts its expertise to
work to determining which alternative to follow, and gives less
emphasis to the "do nothing" alternative.
On the other hand, there are many among the environmental
activists who have made it their mission to preserve all remaining
unspoiled areas in their natural state. These people believe
their stand is not an uncompromising one, since (the argument
goes) about 90% of the nation's water resources have already
been compromised by the Corps and other developers, public and
private. To ask that the remaining 10% be left in their natural
state is hardly being fanatical, in the preservationists view.
-------
Supreme Court,Justice William 0. Douglas .is one of the
best-known spokesman for the preservationist viewpoint.
In a 1969 Playboy article, Justice Douglas described his
personal efforts to stop a Corps of Engineers project and
described his feelings about the natural environment the
project would destroy:
Down in Kentucky last year, my wife and I led a
protest hike against the plans of the Corps to
build a dam that would flood the Red River Gorge.
This gorge, which is on the north fork of Red River,
is a unique form of wilderness that took wind and water
some 60,000,000 years to carve out.
This is Daniel Boone country possessed by bear,
deer and wild turkey. It has enough water for
canoeing a few months out of the year. It is a
wild, narrow, tortuous gorge that youngsters 100
years from now should have a chance to explore.
The gorge is only about 600 feet deep; but the
drop in altitude in the narrow gulch produces a
unique botanical garden. From March to November,
a different wild flower blooms every day along the
trails and across the cliffs.
This is wonderland to preserve, not to destroy.
Why should it be destroyed?
While those who seek to preserve the environment see the
Corps as "public enemy number one" (as Justice Douglas has
said), some Corps officials are often just as cynical about
its opponents, calling them "bird and bunny people" and "little
old ladies in tennis shoes." Clearly, almost any real dialogue
between the public and the Corps would be an improvement over
this sort of name-calling, as we emphasized in Chapter 2.
And there are definite indications that, while the conservation
community is taking a more disciplined, knowledgeable approach
-------
to the Corps, the Corps itself is paying more and more attention
to environmental questions in project planning.
The Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) established
a Recreation and Environmental Branch within its Planning
decision in 1966. In Washington, the Environmental Branch studies
broad areas of environmental concern and draws up guidelines
for assuring that environmental considerations are plugged
into any project planning process. The Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors, the Washington agency which reviews all
Corps projects before the Chief of Engineers decides whether
or not to transmit them to Congress, established an Environmental
Division in January, 1971.
The Institute for Water Resources, a policy study branch
of the Corps, published a pamphlet of Environmental Guidelines
for the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers i'n November, 1970.
The pamphlet is the official Corps statement of its environmental
policy, objectives and guidelines, and says, in,part:
Although extensive, our natural environment
and'the resources it contains are finite. When our
Nation was young, the demands the American people
placed on nature appeared negligible in, comparison
with the quantities of resources available for
them to use. But our population, once small, is
now large and is still growing. At the same time our
material standard of living is steadily rising. We
live in a period of ever-increasing demands for
natural resources on one hand, and of ever-diminishing
supplies on the other. It is clear that there is a
limit to the burden our natural environment can bear,
and that we must conserve our resources and use
them wisely.
Only recently have many people come to realize
that growing demands for resource consumption pose
-------
serious threats to their environment; that man's
environment is composed of interdependent systems
both natural and man-made; and that abuse of one
system jeopardizes the quality of the others and
ultimately the survival of all.
Traditionally Americans have sought economic
growth and development. To that end, the Corps of
Engineers has planned,designed, and constructed
many projects to control and facilitate the use
of water resources by the American people whom we
serve.
Today, we in the Corps face an apparent dilemma.
We are still called upon to meet increasing
demands for resources to support a higher standard
of living for more Americans. And now we are also
being called upon to conserve those same resources
in order to preserve the quality of the natural
environment in which our people live.
But these apparently conflicting demands need
not be mutually exclusive. There are many means
available to us for accomplishing both. We can con-
tinue to serve the American people effectively
and economically and at the same time meet the
requirements of a quality environment.
Reconciling the demands for development and
utilization with those for conservation calls for
reorienting our previous policy that was primarily
concerned with national economic efficiency. We
must give environmental values the full consideration
that is their due. . .
. . . on June 2, 1970, the Chief of Engineers
announced his policy with respect to the environ-
mental aspects of the Corps' mission:
--In full consonance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970 and other environmental authorities
promulgated by the Congress and the
Executive Branch, our overall objective
in accordance with our mission will be
to seek to balance the environmental
and developmental needs of our Nation.
--We will examine carefully environmental
values when studying alternative means
of meeting the competing demands of
human needs.
—Best solutions must be found to pro-
blems meeting needs and aspirations of the
people we serve, not merely determination
-------
of whether a specific engineering solution
is economically justified.
--In recognition of the highly complex
relationship between nature and man, we
will encourage and support efforts to
bring the best existing ecological
knowledge and insights to bear on the
planning, development and management
of the Nation's water and related resources.
-- Environmental values will be given
full consideration along with economic,
social and technical factors.
--Special efforts will be made so that
resource options will be kept open for
future generations.
—We will encourage as broad public and
private participation as practical in
defining environmental objectives and in
eliciting viewpoints of what the public
wants and expects as well as what it is
projected to need.
--Acting as moderators and advisors, we
will provide governmental and nongovern-
mental agencies ,and the public with timely
information on opportunities, consequences,
benefits and costs--financial and environ-
mental—before making recommendations
based on a balanced evaluation of the
social, economic, monetary and environmental
considerations involved.
OBJECTIVES
Implicit in this policy are four general environmental
objectives for the Corps:
a. To preserve unique and important ecological,
aesthetic, and cultural values of our national heritage.
b. To conserve and use wisely the natural resources
of our Nation for the benefit of present and future generations.
c. To enhance, maintain, and restore the natural
and man-made environment in terms of its productivity,
variety, spaciousness, beauty, and other measures of quality.
d. To create new opportunities for the American
people to use and enjoy their environment.
-------
GUIDELINES
Our objectives can be translated into guidelines
governing the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works program.
The Corps and the Public. As a public agency the corps
responds to the public interest. That interest synthesizes
many needs, desires and aspirations. It finds expression
in the views of individuals and groups and their represen-
tatives at local, State and Federal levels of government.
We in the Corps of Engineers have an obligation to
receive these views, to know what they are and to
accommodate them insofar as possible. We are equally
obligated to provide information to those who express
these views, so that they can understand our activities
and responsibilities.
Our relationship with the American public requires
a continuing dialog? without it, we cannot know the
public interest. Without such knowledge, the projects
that we build are not likely to serve that interest.
To ensure that we do respond to the public interest,
we must seek out its expressions. This is not merely
a matter of meeting others half-way; we must do whatever
is necessary to obtain the wide range of views which
make up the public interest. These often divergent
views must be injected into every aspect of our work.
They must be introduced during the earliest stage of
our consideration of a project and reconsidered at
every subsequent stage.
Among the most important of the views that
we must obtain and consider are those concerned with
environmental values. Altogether too often the environ-
mental viewpoint has not crystallized until a project
was under construction. This is not good for those
concerned with the environment—their intentions are
not realized; it is not good for the Corps—we do
not achieve our objectives; it is not good for the
American people--their best interests are not served.
For these reasons we must take positive measures to
insure that considerations of all elements of the public
interest, including the environmental viewpoint, are
introduced into each phase of our programs.
CONCLUSION
In essence, we seek to introduce an environmental
viewpoint when our projects first come under consideration
-------
and to receive and accommodate it at every subsequent
stage of their development and utilization. In achieving
this end, we require the full cooperation of every
employee of the Corps of Engineers, and we invite the
participation of all other concerned Americans.
The Corps efforts to delineate what it feels is the best way
to approach its ecology problems are commendable and far more
advanced than many of the other Federal agencies with environmental
concerns. However, we definitely feel that the Corps and all
other agencies involved with water resources are only admitting
there is a problem and are only seeking ways to soften or lessen
the ecological impact of projects rather than eliminate it.
This is essentially what all laws concerning our environment do
(such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) : they
only lessen the effect of a problem; they don't attack the
cause. The problem is natural disorder caused by man.
We would like to provide our views on some of the statements
made by the Corps in their Environmental Guidelines. . .
pamphlet in hopes that both the Corps and the public will take
a broader and longer-range wiew of the causes of our national
and world-wide environmental problem, not the effects.
In "The Need for Redirection" the Corps states "... that
man's environment is composed of interdependent systems both
natural and man-made; and that abuse of one system jeopardizes
the qualities of the other and ultimately the survival of all."
We submit that natural and man-made systems are definitely not
interdependent. The dependency is only one-way: man must
continue exploiting natural resources under his present economic
-------
and political structure, therefore man depends on nature to
maintain and expand his economic development ideology. Nature
can only depend on man to destroy it, if he keeps consuming
natural resources as he does. Nature does not today, depend on
man to keep funtioning in an orderly fashion. To develop
man-made systems that are interdependent with natural systems,
that is man-made systems that function in harmony with natural
systems, should be a world-wide technological goal of mankind.
But to say that these two systems are, today, interdependent
is wrong. We have war, poverty, racism and pollution to prove
that man is not interdependent with nature.
In the same section the Corps states "... these apparently
conflicting demands (conservation vs development} need not be
mutually exclusive. We can continue to serve the American people
effectively and economically and at the same time meet the re-
quirements of a quality environment." conservation and economic
development are absolutely mutually exclusive in o.ur present-
day society. America is overpopulated and populating at an
increasing rate; America overconsumes resources and is increasing
its per capita consumption, and America has an economic philosophy
based on continual economic expansion which both promotes and
thrives on, overpopulation and overccnsumption. To conserve
our natural resources we must have a stable population, a lower
level of consumption (with no decrease in the quality of life)
and an economy based on the total recycling of our resources.
So what we have today is the exact negation of what we should
have to conserve resources. However, a new conservation ethic
-------
would in no..way preclude "development," it would only stipulate
that we redefine development to mean the building of a culture
(Hopefully worldwide) in which man exists in complete harmony
with natural systems and therefore with his fellow man.
Under our present economic system and the conditions of
overpopulation , and overconsumption the Corps cannot "... continue
to serve the American people. . ." ". . . and meet the requirements
of a quality environment. . . " if in fact, the Corps really
wishes to conserve our resources. The Corps only builds projects
which maintain and promote overpopulation and overconsumption,
therefore they are perpetuating continual economic expansion.
The only "requirement" of a quality environment is that it
functions in an orderly way: that it be diversified and uninter-
rupted (cyclic). Overpopulation, overconsumption and continual
expansion destroy and simplify our environment; the biosphere
is becoming simplified and less stable and man-made systems are
interrupting the natural cycles of the earth. Therefore, we
suggest that Corps projects are not meeting the "... requirements
of a quality environment," but are only destroying them, and their
projects are not serving people since they promote, the three causes
of our natural disorder, expansion, overpopulation and overconsumption.
This leads to all our human and ecological conflicts.
Under the same "... Redirection. . ." heading,the Corps
says, "Reconciling the demands for development and utilization
with these for conservation calls for reorienting our previous
policy that was primarily concerned with national economic
efficiency. We must give environmental values the full consideration
-------
that is their due." We concur that the Corps should reorient
its policy, but it obviously is a very minor shift in light
of the discussion above. If our society, including our economy,
were based on ecological principles, there would be np_ "reconciling"
of any demands. We would have development and utilization within
ecological constraints that would develop means of producing
goods from renewable resources such as wood. Non-renewable
resources would not be used except in emergencies or, until
"renewable resource technology" is sufficiently developed, non-
renewable resources (oil, uranium) would be used in man-made systems-
that are 100 per cent efficient. All the Corps has really
said about "reconciling" is-that they will continue to develop
and exploit resources, then consider the ecological impact of
their projects and try to cover up the impact, not eliminate it.
This is the exact opposite approach which they should be taking.
The Corps should base all its policy, objectives and guidelines
on ecological principles, then decide what they can develop
and where and when they can take action.
Is there any value in environmental legislation such as
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or- Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act? As far as working toward a solution to our
problem of natural disorder, by way of correcting overcbnsumption,
overpopulation and economic expansion, there is no value in
these laws. Government agencies which abide by these mandates are
only masquerading as organizations of ecological reform. The
present laws concerning ecological impact are only an after-the-
fact beautification program, saying in effect, go ahead and rip-off
our ecosphere (with caution) then dress it up a little after
-------
you're done. This perpetuates the same environmental injuries
as before except it throws in some bandaids and mercurochrome,
at added cost.
However, an equally important question to ask is,' is there
any value in these laws which will bring people to a level at
which they understand the importance of ecology and understand
what man is doing to the ecology of the earth? The answer is
definitely yes! Herein lies the real worth of our present-day
eco-legislation. It will help people and agencies become aware
of our deteriorating environment and once they realize how
critical some situations are, then they can develop the technology
to eliminate overpopulation, overconsumption and continual economic
expansion. To develop solutions, man must first realize the
problem. There are very few who are aware of the existing crises
and our present laws will hopefully do much to increase the number
of aware people. We hope most people will make the transition
from L. Clark Stevens "linear Establishment" to his "simulsense"
generation or from Consciousness I and Consciousness II to
Consciousness III as defined by Charles Reich. Every government
agency should be a "simulsense" or "Consciousness III" group.
This kind of spontaneous society must come soon if we are to
survive.
So we find that there is some good in the Corps' eco-
philosophy in that it is a small step in the right direction.
But we also find that the Corps must immediately begin taking
the next step: from making people aware to doing their part to eliminate
overpopulation, overconsumption and a continually expanding economy.
-------
At the District and Division levels, an environmental staff
of one to eighteen may include sanitary engineers, landscape
architects, biologists, recreation specialists, and geologists to
study all environmental aspects of specific projects for the
District or Division. To date, the .Recreation and Environmental
Branch has been concerned more with recreation than with our
total environment, but as public pressure for the salvation of
our environment grows, the Branch should concern itself more and
more with conservation and preservation. Citizens should try
to learn how adequately staffed a particular Division or
District office is and whether it is capable of studying the
numerous environmental and social aspects of water resource
projects. An environmental branch with a converted engineer,
or an architect or a, recreation specialist serving as the
"Environmental specialist" for that district is not properly
staffed. Citizens must encourage and prod the Corps into develop-
ing environmental departments with a multidisciplinary approach.
When specialists, such as aquatic biologists, geologists or
wildlife biologists, are not available for hire, then the Corps
is obligated to seek consultant firms with the relevant expertise
so that they may prepare environmental statements that conform
with the present guidelines.
Environmental Advisory Board
In April of 1970, the Corps of Engineers appointed six
private citizens to a new Corps Environmental Advisory Board.
In announcing the formation of the board, the Chief of Engineers,
Lt. Gen. F.J. Clarke, said,
...as the environmental problems and'issues attendant
-------
to our activity become more complex, I strongly feel
the need for assistance from a group of advisors ex-
ternal to 'the Corps who could provide not only a broad
range of knowledge, expertise and experience, but also
a philosophy and perspective that has not yet been fully
developed within the Corps. I expect this Board to be
a working board and I plan to use it extensively. I
expect that it will provide not only advice on specific
policies, programs and problems, but perhaps more im-
portant contribute to an enhanced mutual understanding
and confidence between the Corps and both the general
public and the conservation community. (emphasis added)
Duties undertaken by the members of the Environmental
Advisory Board, as defined in the Corps specifications,
include:
1) Reviewing, commenting and making recommendations on
existing and proposed policies and activities.
2) Advising of specific projects where environmental
controversies have arisen.
3) Working as individuals within their areas of special
expertise to advise on relevant issues or to participate in
the development or conduct of seminars or short courses.
The key word in all this is "advisory." The Board lacks
the authority to make policy or veto projects or permits, although
it has been asking for this power. However, in at least one
instance, the Board has provided important leverage for conservation
forces. As we shall see in our case study of the Cross-Florida
Barge Canal (later in this book), public knowledge that a Board
member has serious doubts about the worth of the project can add
weight to a court argument for a citizens' group seeking to
enjoin the project (although that has certainly not General
Clarke's intention in creating the Board). The present Board,
chaired by Roland C. Clement, who has been the Vice President of
-------
the National Audubon Society, has requested new studies of
many controversial Corps proposals, including the Barge Canal
(on which construction has now halted), the Oakley Dam in
Illinois which has not yet been started, and the Upper Columbia
River Navigation Plan.
On paper the Advisory Board appears as a serious Corps
attempt to seek competent ecological advice. However, comments
by individual Board members indicate that the corps is not seeking
their advice in all cases, and when it does it sometimes does
not act on that information or even considers it. The Advisory
Board met with the Corps in June 1971 to present a list of suggestions
for improving the Corps planning procedure, public participation
and ecological awareness. Two basic areas of disagreement
were whether or not the Board should have veto power over contro-
versial projects (which they did not get) and whether or not
there should be local citizen advisory boards at the district
level of the Corps (which the Corps did not want to have).
The Corps had previously tried district advisory boards with what
they said were negative results. All other suggestions presented
by the Board met with general agreement by the Corps . However,
Board members were quick to point out, agreeing with suggestions
and actually considering and implementing them are two entirely
different matters. The Advisory Board feels most of their
suggestions are taken too lightly and not implemented by the Corps.
Individual Board members are considering resigning in view of their
relative ineffectiveness and the fact that they feel they are
nothing more than public relations appointees.
-------
Charles H. Stoddard, a resource consultant, past Chairman
of the Advisory Board and a present member of that Board, sent
a letter to Gen. F. J. Clarke, Chief of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers following the June 1971 meeting between the Board and
the Corps in Wash., D.C. The letter is Stoddard's personal appraisal
of the first year's work of the Board and future board functions.
Stoddard commends the Corps for its progress (sometimes overcautious
and deliberate) in enforcing the 1899 Refuse Act and in its
apparent attempt to seek waste water management authority.
However, in the water resources development field where the
Board has concentrated its efforts, Stoddard is quite critical
of the Corps for not implementing more comprehensive environmental
planning procedures, for failing to take immediate action
on controversial projects, using the Board's recommendations,
and for not seeking and. using the Board's expertise in developing
seminars and short courses for Corps personnel.
In a concluding statement Stoddard has this to say,
". . .in view of our near zero batting average, I am fearful
that the Boards existence may be giving the Congress and an
anxious public an impression of progress, when there is precious
little. Even more to the point, it is quite clear to me that
basic changes, both institutional and procedural, are necessary
if the problems we face in water resource development prospects
are to be squarely faced. When internal reform is not forthcoming,
it calls forth external pressures for change."
Stoddard continues by offering what he feels would be a
major step in eliminating our present eco-destructive trend;
-------
"Of first importance is establishment of an independent appellate
body with veto power over environmentally harmful projects,
including A.E.G. power, highways, Soil Conservation Service,
wetland drainage, Reclamation and Corps. Such a body is needed
to restore equality of participation by American citizens in
the decisions affecting them. . . These concepts are implied in
the Percy Bill (s.4307), giving the Environmental Advisory Board
statutory authority for project review and appeals. Along
with an independent appeal system, a munber of structural
reforms also are needed to correct the causes of present
problems."
It remains to be seen whether the Advisory Board continues
in existence. Board members feel they are not being listened
to and the idea of such a Board is misleading the public.
Rather than waste the Board's time and give the public a false
impression, Board members are considering resigning.
-------
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Citizens gained a new weapon in the effort to retain and
restore environmental quality \vith the passage of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Section 101 of that law speaks
in general terms of the Federal government's commitment to a policy
of ecological responsibility. In the words of the 1969 law, it
is the aim of national jDpjLicry to:
1) Fulfill the responsibilities' of each generation
as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
2) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive
and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
3) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk .to health or safety,
or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
4) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural
aspects of our national heritage, and- maintain, wherever
possible, an environment which supports diversity., and
variety of individual choice;
5) Achieve a balance between population and resource
use which will permit high standards of living and a
wide sharing of life's amenities; and
6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and
apptoach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources,
While environmentalists applaud the general orientation o-f
the law, the actual tool for citizens' use is found in Section 102,
which requires all federal agencies contemplating "actions
significantly affecting the human environment" to prepare a detailed
statement of the probable impact of their actions. The Corps of
Engineers must submit an environmental impact statement (often
called a 102 statement) for each .public works project it proposes
to build.
-------
The Corps is expected to consult with other Federal and state
agencies in the preparation of its environmental statements and to
include the comments of these agencies and concerned citizens in
its final statement. Federal agencies usually consulted include
the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Interior Department, the Office
of Water Quality within the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the President's Water Resources Council. The environmental impact
statement is aimed at ensuring that "presently unquantified environ-
mental amenities and values" are given "appropriate consideration
in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations."
102 statements must include detailed information about the following
five points:
1. The environmental impact
2. Unavoidable adverse environmental effects
3. Alternatives to the proposed action
4. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity; and1
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
involved.
Where does the citizens' group fit into the 102 process? Theo-
retically, environmental groups should be able to use the 102 state-
ments to check both the Corps' and their own assessments of the
environmental impact of a proposed project. To do this effectively,
groups should obtain copies of the 102 statements as early as
-------
possible in the planning process. The Corps' own guidelines
state that the preliminary draft environmental statement, pre-
pared at the District level, "may be provided, upon request,
for review and comment to interested citizen groups and to
groups which have actively participated in the project study."
Hopefully, environmental groups will have made their interest
well-known, along with the Chamber of Commerce, real estate
and transportation interests and the like.
When 7itizens believe that a Corps 102 statement is incom-
plete or inaccurate in its assessment of environmental impact,
they should reply to the statement in writing. Their criti-
cisms should be sent directly to the Corps, as well as to the
Council on Environmental Quality, the Public Works Committees,
the local Congressional delegation, the President—and the Press.
Such a rebuttal might be used at public meetings in the revision•
and finalization of the Statement, or in critical instances, in
litigation.
The Corps' Record of Compliance
As is usually the case with landmark legislation, the real
impact of the law could not be assessed until compliance or non-
compliance could be observed over a period of several months. In
1970, the performance of all the Federal agencies, including the
Corps, was less than satisfactory. Some agencies simply did not
file the necessary environmental impact statements. The Corps
of Engineers did file statements and appeared anxious to comply with
the law; if its statements were frequently late and insufficiently
-------
detailed, we can only hope that these shortcomings were attributable
to the administrative problems of initiating a new procedure.
Basically, the problems surrounding the 102 process
can be summarized in three areas: 1) timing of completion and
availability to the public; 2) content of the statements themselves;
and 3) use and review of the statements by other agencies,
particularly the Council on Environmental Quality, OMB, and the
Public Works Committees.
Because of the crunch involved in preparing some 88
statements to accompany the 1970 Omnibus Rivers and Harbors
bill through Congress, most of the statements didn't even exist
in draft form until after the last public hearings were held on
the bill. While this may have been unavoidable in this first
year, it is clearly inconsistent with the intent of the Act.
The Council on Environmental Quality recently enacted new
guidelines which should do much to relieve the problem. The
guidelines state:
In accord with the policy of the N.E.P.A. and Executive
Order 11514 agencies have a responsibility to develop
procedures to ensure the fullest practicable provision
of timely public information and understanding of
Federal plans and programs with environmental impact
in order to obtain the views of interested parties.
These procedures shall include, whenever appropriate,
provisions for public hearings and shall provide the
public with relevant information, including information
on alternative courses of action.
-------
The CEQ'guidelines go on to require a time-lapse of 90
days after the public release of a draft statement (or 30 days
after release of a final statement) before an "'administrative
action" affecting the environment may be taken. Army Corps
projects are legislative (not administrative) actions prior
to authorization (Step 12). After authorization, most
action is administrative within the Corps. The guidelines
do not set a specific time requirement for 102 statements on
legislation, but they do indicate that delivery after the last
Congressional hearing will no longer be acceptable:
With respect to recommendations or reports on proposals
for legislation to which Section 102(2) (C) applies, the
final text of the environmental statement should be
available to the Congress and the public in advance of
any relevant Congressional hearings ...the environmental
statement and comments should be made available to the
public at the same time they are furnished to the Congress.
In the case of hearings held by the'Corps itself, the
statements must be released to the public fifteen days prior to
the hearings. The -guidelines do not make such a specification
for Congressional hearings, however; we can' only hope that the
Corps will not consider its duty completed if it supplies state-
ments to the public and the Congress one day before scheduled
hearings. Citizens could hardly prepare testimony based on the 102
statement in so short a time. At this writing the new CEQ guide-
lines are not final; perhaps the Council will see fit to close this
loophole by requiring that the statements be provided to Congress
and the public at the same time that the legislation itself is
sent to the Hill. Given the slow pace of Congress, this would
surely guarantee a lapse of at least 15 days before hearings,
and probably a period of 90 days before the bill was' voted upon.
-------
The problems of content may be more difficult to correct than
those of timeing and availability to the public. Malcom Baldwin,
Senior Legal Associate of The Conservation Foundation, has out-
lined in a C.F. memorandum some of the major shortcomings in the
content of the 102 statements in the 1970 bill:
1) None of the statement describes the exact nature of
the projects or provides maps.
2) In almost all cases, the statements have a marked
alvocatorial tone and are based on data selected to
support the Corps' proposal.
3) The Corps tends to stress the favorable impact of
its projects upon the industrial and economic environ-
ment, and minimize the impact upon the natural
environment.
4) The statements are not footnoted or documented in
a manner to help citizens find data with which to
check the Corps' conclusions.
5) Most of the statements provide only a limited examina-
tion of alternatives, particularly the alternative
of "no action."
6) Statements tend to ignore the secondary effects of
the projects, such as detrimental results of increased
land use or traffic. When such effects are mentioned,
they are not examined in detail. (Baldwin "A Review
of Corps of Engineers Practices Under Section 102 (2) (C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act",unpublished,
passim.)
Baldwin offers several suggestions for improving environmental
impact statements in the future, including a correction of the
defects mentioned above, and the following additions:
1) A description of the valuable resources of the
project area, including a catalogue of the types
and quantity of wildlife.
2) A detailed consideration of the effect the project
might have at various stages in the wildlife cycle,
including the costs and benefits of these wildlife
and natural resources.
3) An analysis of other agency or public opposition to the
project.
(Ibid. , pp.17-18.)
-------
Baldwin offers qualified praise of the Corps' efforts:
Criticisms of the Corps practices under Section 102 should
not obscure the fact that the Corps has shown, compared to
other agencies, an unusual sensitivity to the mandate of
of NEPA and encouraging capacity to improve its performance.
There is good reason to believe that the environmental state-
ments to come out of the Corps in the future will be sig-
nificantly better than those of the past.
(Ibid., p. 18)
Probably the most difficult improvement will be the abolish-
ment of the argumentative tone of Corps of Engineers environmental
impact statements. Many people question whether the statements should
be prepared by the Corps itself and suggest that they come instead
from an independent agency. They assert that the Corps wants to
build dams and canals; after all, that is how it earns its keep. How,
then, they ask, can it be truly objective in its assessment of environ-
mental effects? Might not the Environmental Protection Agency do a
better job? (In somewhat the same vein of thought, many critics of
the Army Corps have suggested that the initial cost/benefit analysis
should be done by the Office of Management and Budget rather than by
the Corps.)
In reporting on the 1970 Rivers and Harbors Act, the Senate
Public Works Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the persuasive
attitude in the Corps' environmental statements:
Guidelines developed by the Council on Environmental
Quality require that environmental impact agencies cir-
culate draft 'environmental1 statements to the environmental
control agencies for comment. Present practice tends to re-
sult in environmental agencies examining the views of the
impact agency, rather than the impact of the project on the
environment. The committee is concerned that this may tend
toward developing a self-serving justification for environmental
impact rather than a review of that impact.
(Senate Report 91-1422, accompanying the 1970
Rivers and Harbors Authorization Act, December 8, 1970,
p. 6.)
-------
The Committee has promised a review of the entire Corps
of Engineers authorization in the 92nd Congress; perhaps the
Committee will consider the question of objectivity in assessing
costs, benefits, and environmental effects. A Committee staff
member has said that the review of Corps policies and procedures
will depend upon active public pressure, since the plan for review
is controversial even within the committee. He has urged citizens1
groups to contact the Committee to present their ideas and express
their willingness to testify. He has also put forth his own
suggestion for solving the objectivity problem. Calling the
practice of allowing the Corps to assess its own environmental
impact "disastrous" and describing the 102 statements issued to
date as "mere rhetorical exercises," he suggests a system of
spot checks at the site of proposed projects. Such checks would
be made outside the usual Corps channels at the District level
by task forces from the Environmental Protection Agency and would
involve contact with local citizens who have made known their
interest in the project.
In addition to the problems of timing and content, some
significant problems have arisen relating to the effective review
and use of environmental statements. The largest problem is the
sheer number of statements and insufficient manpower to review them
adequately -- or, in some cases, even to read them. Malcolm
Baldwin has discussed this problem in reference to the 88 statements
accompanying the 1970 Rivers and Harbors bill:
-------
Neither the CEQ, OMB, nor the other federal agencies
are now able to review these in detail. Neither has
the public works committee staff in the House and
Senate the capacity. . . Major questions arise as to
the, utility of the 102- process given these review
constraints.
It is in this respect that citizens can be very useful.
Since local groups are most often interested in only one or
two of the Corps projects, they can concentrate on those and
give careful scrutiny to the environmental impact statements
for the proposed Oakley Dam in Illinois. The Committee on
Allerton Park (a citizens' group) has done a great deal of independent
research and has been able to question many of the conclusions
in the Corps' 102 statement on Oakley. A brief description of
the Oakley controversy and a comparison between the findings of
the Corps and the Committee on Allerton Park may be instructive
for other citizens' groups.
A Case Study on 102 Statements; Oakley Dam vs. Allerton Park
In 1962, Congress authorized the construction of one dam
(Oakley) on the Sangamon River in Illinois. The reservoir was
to have a pool level at 621 feet above sea level. At this
elevation, some flooding could be expected in the bottomlands of
Allerton Park, a woodland park owned by the University of Illinois
and used by the public for recreation and by the University for
scientific research. The Corps listed project purposes as
flood control, water supply for the city of Decatur, recreation.
Estimated cost: $29 million.
-------
Subsequent to the project authorization, the Corps made
numerous changes and additions to the Oakley plans. In 1966,
the Corps acted unilaterally (without public or Congressional
hearings) to add 15 feet to the height of the dam, raising the pool
level to 636 feet. At this height, damage to Allerton Park
would be far more extensive. The cost of the project was then esti-
mated at $64 million.
The Committee on Allerton Park was formed in 1967 with Bruce
Hannon as its leader and spokesman. Its first activity was
a petition drive, collecting 20,000 signatures against the project
and recommendirig-several alternatives. The Harza Engineering
Company, under contract with the University of Illinois, also
recommended ways to accomplish the same purposes without the
increase in height of the dam. The following year the Committee
collected 80,000 more signatures.
In 1969, the Corps again raised the height of the proposed
dam and reservoir, this time to 640 feet. There were several
factors behind this very substantial increase in the project
size, among them:
1) The addition of storage water for the city of Decatur;
2) The addition of reservoir storage for low flow dilution
in the river downstream from Decatur;
3) Revision of topographic analyses of the reservoir
area, indicating the need for a higher level;
4$, A switch in Federal economic planning policies from
a 50-year to a 100-year economic life and a revision of
predictions for siltation, together necessitating a
near-tripling of the size of the sediment pool; and
-------
5) a revised analysis of historic flood patterns, causing
the addition of 36,200 acre feet of flood storage.
Project cost was then estimated at $75 million. The Illinois
Division of Waterways suggested an alternative (known thereafter
as the "Waterways Alternative") which would restore the original
621-foot elevation for the reservoir and include a "greenbelt"
of undeveloped open space for recreation for 100 miles downstream
from the dam. The University, the State, and the city of Decatur,
signed an agreement supporting the waterways alternative.
The Committee on Allerton Park stated that it would not oppose
the plan, provided the Corps agreed to its terms. The Corps
did not state its position that year. Meanwhile, the Illinois Water
Survey reported that the city of Decatur had a large,high-
quality underground water supply potential which could provide as
much water as the proposed reservoir without the nitrate and
eutrophication problem anticipated in the reservoir
by state and federal water quality officials.
The Committee and the Corps finally clashed head-on in
1970. The Corps made some changes in the design again, this
time raising the pool level to 623'. The Corps submitted an
environmental impact statement to which the Committee took
point-by-point exception. The Committee, along with the
Environmental Defense Fund and other local parties, filed suit
in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., aimed at stopping the
whole project. The Suit was based on a contention that the 1962
authorization had been violated by vastly increased cost and
significant changes in design, and on a claim that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 had not been observed, since
-------
the 102 statement was far from satisfactory. The suit was
still pending in early 1971.
Below is a chart summarizing the Corps' five-point environ-
mental statement on Oakley and the Committee on Allerton Park's
rebuttal, taken from the testimony and statements of Committee ii -
members, consultants, and allies.
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COMMITTEE ON ALLTERTON PARK
I. RECREATION
A. "The additional water-based
recreation of the two reservoirs
and greenbelt will greatly benefit
the recreational environment of
the project area. The proposed
facilities will attract a large
population of recreation seekers."
B. "Stream flow regulation will
significantly enhance the recrea-
tion and aesthetic values of the
Sangamon River below Decatur.
The river will flow through a
large tract of public land
some 21,000 acres, called the
greenbelt. This greenbelt is
a significant contribution to
environmental quality of the
area. The benefits to the en-
vironmental quality of the area
resulting from recreation and
stream flow regulation are high-
ly desirable."
I. RECREATION
A. "The State had planned to
acquire the entire Sangamon
River Valley under their
Recreational Rivers plan. This
would 'have made public access
along the entire river and
supplied the major portions of the
recreation benefit now con-
templated. "
B. "The Corps claims almost half
of the recreation benefit (15%
of the total .project benefits)
will come from swimming in the
Oakley Reservoir, despite a
fluctuating water level, the
anticipated algae and silt-
ridden water, and the require-
ments and recommendations for
body contact recreation."
"The recreational use of the
proposed Reservoir has been
greatly overestimated. Not
only will the water be too
shallow for good boating and
too polluted for good swimming
and fishing, there will be ex-
tensive mudflats surrounding
much of the water during the
summer. The mudflats will be
exposed on the nearly level
bottomlands covered by the
shallow impoundment when the.
water level is reduced by summer
drawdown.
"Anyone who has seen the
Corps' Carlyle and Mansfield
reservoirs knows that the fluc-
tuating reservoir is hardly
a thing of beauty especially
when mudflats appear."
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COMMITTEE ON ALLERTON .PARK
II ;• FLOOD CONTROL
A. "Flood control will serve to
enhance the health and well-being
of the downstream population. The
documented flood damages attest to
the fact that flooding reduces the
environmental quality of the area.
Not only does loss of life and
property occur, but silt deposits
build up, vegetation is destroyed,
and the natural fish and wildlife
habitat is disrupted. Flood
control minimizes these disruptions
in the downstream valley."
"Flood control will enhance the
scenic beauty of the river valley,
and the periodic disruption of the
fish and, wildlife habitat will be
reduced."
II. FLOOD CONTROL
A. "Actually flood control will
destroy the natural environmental
quality of the area since, as a
primitive habitat, the area requires
p_eriodic flooding. In line 4
/of the Corps' statement/, instead
of lamenting that'silt deposits
build up'as the result of flooding,
such build-up is desirable in
adding new soil and fertility to the
area-this is what gives high
productivity to farming on the
flood plain. Reference is made in
the 5th line that 'vegetation is
destroyed. ' Actually the type of
vegetation that 'occurs here is a
type of vegetation that has
•evolved through the ages and is
adapted to tolerate the natural
pattern of flooding. Prevention
of flooding will cause this unique
.vegetation to be replaced by quite
a different kind of vegetation.
Likewise, 'the natural fish and
wildlife habitat1 can only be
preserved by allowing natural
flooding... Instead of flood control1
maintains the natural environment,'
it completely changes it to another
kind of environment."
B. "Farmers will realize
increased productivity from their
livestock and crops."
"Flooding does not reduce environ-
mental quality in the downstream'
region, since flooding is a natural
part of the downstream bottomland
environment. The plants and animals
as well as the farmers have adapted
themselves to the local environment
which must include flooding. Perio-
dic natural bottomland flooding is
essential to the life cycle of many
of the bottomland species of plants
and animals."'
B. "Much of the flooded land is in
the federal idle-acres program where
farmers are paid not to grow crops."
"More farmland is permanently
flooded upstream / if the dam is
built/ than is permanently protected
down s t Etre am."
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS COMMITTEE ON ALLERTON PARK
II. FLOOD CONTROL, Cont. II. FLOOD CONTROL, Cont.
C. "Downstream urban communities C. "The Corps does not claim
will function in an orderly flood damages in Decatur. The
manner without the fear of severe flood damage is almost exclu-
flooding." sively agricultural and
apparently exaggerated."
". . .less than 1% of the
flood plain is now urban. The
dam will probably induce more
urban areas into the bottomlands,
Since the dam only controls
15% of the Sangamon watershed,
a 150 year storm will be passed
through the dam and urban damage
will be extensive. This is one
of the reasons why Luther Carter
said in Science in 1967, Decem-
ber, that the nation's flood
damages are rising."
-------
fDRPS OF ENGINEERS
COMMITTEE ON ALLERTON PARK
III. WATER SUPPLY
A. "The recommended project
will meet the increasing demand
of water supply for Decatur. A
dependable water supply will
greatly aid the development of
this city. Industry and commerce
will continue to be attracted to
the area. The water demands of an
increasing residential population
will also be met."
III. WATER SUPPLY
A. "The water in the Oakley reservoir
may not meet federal (USPHS) drinking
water standards. Illinois State Water
Survey data clearly show precipitous
increases in the nitrate concentrations
in the Sangamon river which would
flow into the Oakley reservoir...
Indeed, the rate of increase has been
so rapid that nitrate concentrations
may exceed USPHS limits before the
Oakley reservoir could be built and
filled. Ground waters, on the other
hand, exhibit low nitrate concentrations
and may be inherently protected from
increases in nitrate due to reducing
conditions."
"The potential for algae growth in
the Oakley reservoir would be great
owing to the availability of large
amounts of nutrients. While algae
blooms cause nuisances and contribute
to tastes and odors, the chief
influence of the algae growth would
be to impair the operation and economy
of water treatment plant processes."
B. "In particular,- the use of
ground water in lieu of water
supply storage did not appear to
be justified. Use of the ground
water could serious.ly deplete
this vital water reserve. The
city of Decatur would have no
control over ground water sources
and would have the risk of wells
going dry. The inclusion of
storage for water supply in the
recommended project is much more
economical than the development
of well fields to meet Decatur's
year 2020 demands."
"The -/Illinois/ State Water Survey
conducted a study in 1968.^From this
study we concluded that the Mahomet
Valley groundwater could meet the
assumed demand of 26 million gallons
per day without unreasonable inter-
ference with existing installations
and their projected needs'."
"The use of ground water to supplement
Decatur's water supply for the next
100 years has several very obvious
advantages. Chiefly, the entire
capacity need not be developed immedi-
ately, but as the demand develops..
Estimates of water needs might have
to be estimated only 10 years in
advance. Excess water capacity need_
not be carried in a reservoir for
decades, even generations."
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
IV. ALLERTON PARK
A. "The project may induce
slight changes in the Allerton
Park bottomlands. The full
extent of possible effects cannot be
completely determined until
they occur. However, there will
be some change to the natural
environment in the lower end
of the park. Some research
potential may be lost. However,
this loss,-can be offset by staging
the filling of the Oakley pool and
a concurrent research program.
Such a research program should
establish base line data prior
to filling the pool. As the
pool is then filled to the
623.0 -level over a period of time,
research can determine any
ecological changes. The science
of water resource development
needs such ecological research.
The recommended project presents
a superb opportunity for a
cooperative environmental
research program involving the
Federal and State Governments,
and University of Illinois.
Staged, filling of the Oakley
pool and concurrent research
would help minimize any
irreversible or irretrievable
committments of resources."
COMMITTEE ON ALLERTON PARK
IV. ALLERTON PARK
A. "The normal pattern of flooding
at Allerton Park involves an
average of 3.3 floods per year,
mostly from January through June,
each flood lasting about 5 days,
and with a total inundation of 17
days per year. Any change in this
pattern will set back the normal
succession (if flooding is ex-
cessive) or accelerate the succ-
ession (if flooding is reduced).
With any change produced in the
normal flooding pattern, the Park
can no longer be considered a
natural area and it thereby loses
much of its scientific value."
"The Corps proposes that a
scientific research program be
funded to obtain ecological data
on Allerton Park. 'There is no
guarantee that such a program
would be sufficiently funded or
that information gained would be
used by the Corps."
"We are more immediately concerned
as to the effect of the Reservoir
on the natural area in Allerton
Park. This natural area is unique,
in fine condition, and has been
recommended by this State Comm-
ission for inclusion in the
Illinois State Nature Preserves
System. It has also been
recommended by the U.S. National
Park Service as a National Natural
Landmark...The natural chara-
cteristics of the area will be
lost with the permanent water
level in the Reservoir raised to
623" and the discharge lowered
to 5000 cfs. This Commission
opposes this .plan..."
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
IV. Allerton Park, cont.
COMMITTEE ON ALLERTON PARK
IV. ALLERTON PARK, cont.-
"The depth, duration and frequency
of artificial flooding in the
Allerton bottomlands with a 5000
cfs flood discharge rate would be
considerably greater than indicated
by the February 20, 1970 report
because of a Corps error in
computation...Instead of artificial
flooding less often than once in
15 years, as the Division of Waterways
has reported to Governor Ogilvie,
there would be greater than natural
flooding about once every 4 years."
"At elevation 623, the joint-u^e
pool would extend upstream all the
way through Allerton Park, though
the water level will be below the
top of the banks of the river.
This means that there would be a
standing pond rather than a flowing
stream in the park, and that there
would be a permanent rise of as
much as 3 feet in the level of the
underground water table in the
bottomlands."
-------
BLUEPRINT FOR A CITIZENS'ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY
The Water Resources Council, a policy-making body in the
Executive Branch of the Federal government, has recently com-
pleted a study of present water resource planning policy and
has proposed sweeping changes. In its report, released by a
Special Task Force in July 1970, the WRC advocated giving environ-
mental considerations equal weight with three other issures
(national economic development, regional development, and social
well-being) in future planning for water resource development.
The Task Force report (entitled Standards for Planning Water
and Land Resources) described positive and negative environmental
impacts of water resource development in terms of benefits and costs
Environmental quality benefits (of a project) are
contributions resulting from the management, preser-
vation, or restoration of one or more of the environ-
mental characteristics of an area under study. . .
Environmental costs...are consequences of the proposed
plan that result in the deterioration of relevant
environmental characteristics of an area under study
or elsewhere in the Nation; for example, acres of open
and green space, wilderness areas, estuaries, or
wildlife habitat inundated or altered, or of lands
experiencing increased erosion...
(Standards for Planning Water and Land Resources,
a Report to the Water Resources Council by the
Special Task Force, July 1970, p. III-D-1.)
The WRC report goes on to suggest that, in measuring the
environmental impact of a project, it is necessary to:
1. describe the existing environmental conditions;
2. predict the changes which will occur in these conditions
under a variety of alternatives, including the alter-
-------
native of doing nothing (since some changes will
take place naturally over a period of time without
a project);
3. measure the changes as they take place after adoption
of one of the alternatives. This may be accomplished
with:
- qualitative descriptions of visible impacts
- quantitative descriptions (e.g. fish and
wildlife populations)
- instrumentation measuring, and
- systems analysis of data.
(Ibid, pp. III-D-2,
III-D-3.)
Where do citizens fit irto all this? One of the most valuable
and effective tasks a citizens' group can undertake is the preparation
of a detailed inventory of the region in which the group is active.
Even when there is no Corps project being contemplated for the area,
it is helpful to know the local ecological communities thoroughly
and to make such data available to professional planners and private
citizens. Only with a real understanding of the biologv, qeology,
and history of land and water resources can wise decisions be made
about the future use of these resources.
The Water Resources Council's report offers an outline for
Federal agencies to follow in evaluating the potential impact of a
plan upon the environment. Bv following this outline and modifying
it to serve the special needs of a particular area, a citiaeis'
group can reach its own assessment of existing environmental
characteristics and possible changes in these characteristics.-for
the future.
Excerpts from the WRC outline of environmental features can
serve as a blueprint for a citizen survey of the area or region to
be affected by a potential project.
-------
A. Areas of natural beauty and aesthetic value
1. Open and green space
These are essentially undeveloped, visually
attractive natural areas strategically located where
most needed to ameliorate intensifying urbanization
patterns.
a. Size and measure
(1) Total acreage (woods, fields, meadows, etc.)
(2) Pattern and distribution
(3) Juxtaposition to community and urban areas
(effect on urban sprawl)
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the
designated or affected open and green space
c. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (mileage of public roads or
trails provided; easements)
(2) Public amenities (provision for limited
facilities, if any)
(3) Other (specify or describe)
d. Protection and preservation
(1) Physical
(2) Biological
(3) Legal (dedication, easements, institutional,etc.)
(4) Special
-------
2. Wild and scenic rivers
These are free-flowing streams, with shorelines
or watershed essentially or largely undeveloped, which
possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and
other features.
a. Size and measure, including characterization of
adjacent primitive or near natural setting
(1) Total mileage
(2) White water mileage
(3) Water quality (generally characterize)
(4) Character and extent or acreage of streamside
land
(5) Juxtaposition to communtiy
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
evaluation of the effects of a plan on the designated
or affected wild or scenic river
c. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (trails, infrequent roads, or
other minimum public access provided; easements)
(2) Public amenities (provision for limited
facilities as boat launching, picnic areas, i£ any)
(3) Other (specify or describe)
d. Protection and preservation
(1) Geological
(2) Biological
(3) Legal (dedication or withdrawal, institutional,
pollution standards, etc.)
-------
(4) Special
3. Lakes
Where their clarity, color, scenic setting, or
other characteristics are of special interest,
aesthetically pleasing lakes contribute to the
quality of human experience.
a. Size and measure
(1) Surface acreage
(2) Shoreline mileage
(3) Depths
(4) Water quality
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the
designated or affected lake or lakes
c. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (public roads and trails; easements)
(2) Drainage
(3) Cleaning
(4) Shoreline management, including public amenities
(5) Other (specify or describe)
d. Protection and preservation
(1) Geological
(2) Biological
(3) Legal (institutional, pollution standards, etc.)
(4) Special
-------
4. Beaches and shores
The juxtaposition of attractive beaches,
distinctive, scenic shorelines, and adjacent areas of
clean offshore water provides positive public aesthetic
values and recreational enjoyment.
a. Size and measure
(1) Mileage
(2) Acreage
(3) Marshland acreage
(4) Embayments
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on designated
or affected beaches and shores
c. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (public roads and trails; easements)
(2) Public amenities
(3) Nourishment
(4) Other (specify or describe)
d. Protection and preservation
(1) Physical (jettys, bulkheads, etc.)
(2) Biological (dune succession, limited use, etc.)
(3) Legal (dedication, institutional, etc.)
(4) Special
5. Mountains and wilderness areas, including lowlands
Generally occurring at higher altitudes, these
pristine areas of natural splendor and scientific
-------
interest embrace a very special category of land
use. Such areas are designated for the purpose of
preserving primeval conditions, as nearly as possible,
for aesthetic enjoyment and for limited forms of
recreation and other scientific uses.
a. Size and measure
(1) Acreage
(2) Biological diversity
(3) Pattern and distribution
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the
designated or affected mountain and wilderness area
c. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (limited public roads and trails)
(2) Public amenities (limited facilities provided,
i f any)
(3) Other (specify or describe)
d. Protection and preservation
(1) Geological
(2) Biological
(3) Legal (dedication, institutional, etc.)
(4) Special
6. Estuaries
Beyond their critical importance in man's harvest
of economically useful living marine resources, many
estuaries, coves, and bays merit special consideration
as visually attractive settings that support diverse
life forms of aesthetic value and as marine ecosystems
-------
of special interest.
a. Size or measure
(1) Surface acreage
(2) Shoreline uiileage
(3) Marshland acreage and shoreline mileage
(4) Water quality (generally characterize)
b. Biological significance as a nursery, breeding, and
feeding ground (name species involved)
c. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the desig-
nated or affected estuary
d. Improvements
(1) Accessibility
(2) Public amenities (facilities provided, if any)
(3) Other (specify or describe)
e. Protection and preservation
(1) Geological
(2) Biological
(3) Legal
(4) Special
Other areas of natural beauty
These include any other examples of nature's
visual magnificance and scenic grandeur, not accom-
modated in the above-specified classes, which have
special appeal to the aesthetic faculties of man.
-------
a. Size or measure
(1) Acreage
(2) Mileage
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan designated
or affected areas of natural beauty
c. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (public roads and trails; easements)
(2) Screening
(3) Plantings (seedlings, grassed cover, etc.)
(4) Public amenities (scenic overlooks, if any)
(5) Other (specify or describe)
d. Protection and preservation
(1) Geological
(?) Biological
(3) Legal
(4) Special
Conversely, and in a generally parallel manner, negative
effects of a plan result from the inundation, adverse alteration,
or decreases in the availability, use, and aesthetic quality of
these resources.
Especially valuable archeological, historical, biological,
and geological resources and selected ecological systems
1. Archeological resources
Preservation of these resources provides a continuing
opportunity for studying the development of human
settlements and understanding man's cultural heritage.
a. Size or measure
(1) Acreage
-------
(2) Square footage
(3) Height or depth from ground level
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the
designated or affected archeoloaical resource areas
c. Educational
(1) General education
(2) Special and scientific
"d. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (public roads and trails; easements)
(2) Interpretation and monumentation
(3) Other (specify or describe)
e. Protection and preservation
(1) Physical
(2) Legal (dedication, other)
(3) Special (salvage or full-scale excavation)
Historical resources
Preservation of these resources provides for the
study, understanding, and appreciation of the Nation's
origins-and the evolution of its institutions as well as
its scientific and technical progress.
a. Size and measure
(1) Acreage
(2) Number of units (of whatever kind)
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the
designated or 'affected historical resource area
c. Educational values
(1) General education
-------
(2) Specialize
d. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (public roads and trails; easements)
(2) Availability (as appropriate to particular site
or materials preserved)
(3) Interpretation and monumentation
(4) Other (specify or describe)
e. Protection and preservation
(1) Physical
(2) Legal (dedication, other)
(3) Special (Salvage or full-scale investigation)
3. Biological resources suitable for special study
The opportunity to observe and study biological
resources—terrestrial and aquatic—leads to an en-
larged understanding and appreciation of the natural
world as the habitat of man.
a. Size and measure (wide variation depending on
characteristics of particular animal or plant)
(1) Total land and surface acreage and shoreline
mileage
(a) Land acreage (forest, woodland, grassland, etc.)
(b) Water surface acreage and shoreline mileage
(c) Marshland acreage and shoreline mileage
(2) Population estimates and characteristics of
fish and wildlife to include as nearly as possible:
(a) Age and size classes
(bj Sex ratios
(c) Distribution (density)
-------
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the
designated or affected biological resources
c. Educational
(1) General
(2) Special and scientific
d. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (public roads and trails; easements)
(2) Habitat enhancement or site improvement
(a) Sanitation
(b) Stabilization
(c) Increasing edges
(d) Harvesting (to maintain balance with
environmental food supply)
(e) Cover planting (species, including number
or acreage)
(f) Stocking
(1) Wildlife (species and number)
(2) Fish (species and number)
(3) Other (specify or describe)
e. Protection and preservation
(1) Physical
(2) Legal (dedication, other)
(3) Special
Geological resources
When of outstanding geological or geomorphologic
significance, preservation of these resources contributes
to man's knowledge and appreciation of his physical
environment.
-------
a. Size and measure
(1) Surface acreage
(2) Subsurface acreage (estimated)
(3) Quantity (estimated in appropriate units)
b. A descriptive-qualitative interpretation, including
an evaluation of the effects of a plan on the
designated or affected geological resources
c. Educational
(1) General education
(2) Special and scientific
d. Improvements
(1) Accessibility (public roads and trails; easements)
(2) Interpretation and monumentation
(3) Other (specify or describe)
e. Protection and preservation
(1) Physical
(2) Legal
(3) Special
Conversely, and in a generally paralled manner,
negative effects result from the inundation, deteri-
oration, or disruption of like kinds of resources.
Ecological systems
Apart from the contributions which use of the
natural resource base makes to man's basic needs for
food, shelter, clothing, and employment opportunities,
covered elsewhere, the environmental objective embraces
the concept and appreciation of the values inherent in
preservation of ecological systems per se.
-------
Each natural area, such as a watershed, a
vegetation and soil type, a tidal salt marsh, a lake,
or a stream complex, represents an ecosystem, an
interdependent physical and biotic environment that
functions as a continuing dynamic unity, possessing
not only intrinsic values but also contributing to
the enrichment of the general quality of life in a
variety of subtle ways. Conversely, when such
natural areas are lost or otherwise diminished in
size or quality, there are corresponding environmental
costs borne by society.
Positive effects—benefits—resulting from
preservation of ecological systems include:
1. The maintenance of a natural environment in
a state of equilibrium as an intrinsic value to
society;
2. The provision of the purest form of aesthetic
contact with nature;
3. Contributions to the development, appreciation,
and integration of a "land ethic" or environ-
mental .conscience as a part of man's culture;
and
4. Scientific understanding derived from the
preservation and study of natural ecological
systems which contributes to the conservation
of natural resources in general, the most
important practical application of ecology.
-------
Conversely, negative effects—or costs—are the
reduction or loss of opportunity to society as a
result of a plan.
C. The enhancement of selected quality aspects of
water by control of pollution
Beneficial water quality effects of water resource
projects will, in most instances, be reflected in
monetary benefits to water users and will be recorded
under the national economic development or regional
development objectives. For example, increases
in the Nation's output of goods and services from
improvements in water quality will be accommodated under
the national economic development objective.
There will be other water qaality benefits, how-
ever, such as improvement of water quality to the
degree that swimming may be permitted where such
activity was previously a health hazard, or improve-
ment in water quality to meet established State
standards. However, instances such as these will be
exceptional rather than normal.
Consistent with water quality standards estab-
lished for the affected planning area, positive water
quality control effects, or benefits, are identified,
measured, and described by:
1. Physical-chemical tests
a. Which determine tha amount of oxygen
present in representative samples
-------
b. The amount of oxygen that can be
consumed by the oxidizable materials present
c. Measures of salinity
d. Temperature change
2. Specific indicators
a. By the presence and count of specific
indicator organism, such as coliform
bacteria, algae, etc.
3. Description
a. By a descriptive-qualitative interpretation,
including an evaluation of the effects of a
plan on the aquatic community as a whole
Conversely, negative effects—or costs—will be
reflected as departures from the established water
quality standards, including related damages, as a
result of a plan.
-------
Suggested Reading
Chapter 3
Bennett, George W. Management of Artificial Lakes and Ponds.
Reinhold Publ. Corp. New York. 1962.
Fuller, R. Buckminster. Operation Manual for Spaceship Earth.
Southern Illinois Univ. Press, Carbondale, 111.
Hutchinson, G.E. A Treatise on Liminology. Vol. 1 and 2.
J.E. Wiley and Sons, New York. 1957.
Hynes, H.B.N. The Biology of Polluted Waters. University
Press of Liverpool, Liverpool, England. 1960.
Kormondy, Edward J. Concepts of Ecology. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1969.
McHarg, Ian L. Design With Nature. Natural History Press
(Published for the American Museum of Natural History),
Garden City, N.Y., 1969.
Reich, Charles A. The Greening of America. Bantam Books.
New York, New York.
Stevens, L. Clark. est. A Steersman's Guide to the Coming
Decade of Conflict. Capricorn Press. Santa Barbara,
Calif.
-------
CHAPTER IV
The Corps and Our Environment: Regulatory Functions
Although the public works projects constructed by the Army
Corps of Engineers have an undeniable effect upon the environment
and often attract considerable public attention for that reason,
the Corps' greatest potential impact upon the environment—good or
bad—may lie elsewhere. The Corps possesses statutory authority
going back to the late 19th century to regulate the activities
of private parties on the waterways of the nation. Specifically,
the Corps may grant or deny permits to private industries and
property owners for discharging wastes into waterways, or for
dredging, filling, obstructing, altering or modifying the "course,
location, condition, or capacity" of any navigable waterways or trib-
utary of these waterways in the United States.
The exciting thing about the Corps' regulatory powers from
the citizen's standpoint is the opportunity they afford for citizens
to participate in enforcement of environmental standards and grant-
ing (or denying) of permits. Furthermore, the "Refuse Act," the
1899 statute dredged up (if you'll pardon the expression) with
considerable glee by environmental activists, now serves as a
basis for environmental litigation.
THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899
The Refuse Act is not a complete legislative entity; rather
it is a small, but significant section of the Rivers and Harbors
-------
Act of 1899. Section 13 of that Act has come to be known as
the Refuse Act, and it says:
It shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit,
or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged,
or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge,
or other floating craft of any kind, or from the shore,
wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind,
any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever
other than that flowing from streets and sewers and pass-
ing therefrom in a liquid state, into any navigable water
of the United States, or into any tributary of any
navigable water from which the same shall float or be
washed into such navigable water; and it shall not be
lawful to deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be
deposited, material of any kind in any place on the bank
of any tributary of any navigable water where the same
shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water
either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods,
or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be impeded
or obstructed...provided...that the Secretary of the Army,
whenever in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers an-
chorage and navigation will not be injured thereby,
may permit the deposit of any material above mentioned
in navigable waters within limits to be defined and
under conditions to be prescribed by him, provided
application is made prior to depositing such material;
and whenever any permit is so granted the conditions
thereof shall be strictly complied with, and any violation
thereof shall be unlawful. [33 USC 407, 30 Stat. 1152,
March 22, 1899, (emphasis added)]
The Refuse Act has a companion piece in Section 10 of the
1899 Act, which established a permit requirement for activities
other than dumping. Specifically, Section 10 says:
The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively
authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity
of any of the waters of the United States is pro-
hibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or
commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom,
weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other navigable
river, or other water of the United States, outside
established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines
have been established, except on plans recommended
by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the
Secretary of the Army; and it shall not be lawful to
-------
excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or
modify the course, location, condition, or capacity
of any port, roadstand, haven, harbor, canal, lake,
harbor of refuse, or enclosure within the limits
of any breakwater, or of the channel or any navigable
water of the United States, unless the work has been
recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized
by the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning the
same. [33 USC 403, 30 Stat. 1151 March 22, 1899
(emphasis added)J.
In case of violation, the two sections carry identical
penalties of not more than $2,500 and not less than $500 for each
violation, and imprisonment in the case of a "natural person" of
not more than one year. Citizens can receive one-half of the fine
assessed to all violators. The exact text of the 1899 law, relating
to penalties, is as follows:
Every person and every corporation that shall
violate, or that shall knowingly aid, abet, authorize,
or instigate a violation of the provisions of sections
407, 408, and 409 of this title shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 nor less than
$500, or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural
person) for not less than thirty days nor more than
one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in
the discretion of the court, one-half of said fine to
be paid to the person or persons giving information
which shall lead to conviction. [33 U.S.C. 411, 30
Stat. 1153, March 22, 1899 (emphasis added)].
Together, Sections 10 and 13 provide the Corps with a
good deal of power. The law contains a two-pronged weapon: on
one side, its intent is clearly to regulate altering and discharging
wastes into our waterways through the issuance of permits; on the
other side, it explains the procedures for prosecuting violators
under the United States Criminal Code.
The Department of Justice shall conduct the legal
proceedings necessary to enforce the provisions of
sections xxx 407, 408, 409 (and) 411, xxx of this title;
and it shall be the duty of United States attorneys to
-------
vigorously prosecute all offenders against the
same whenever requested to do so by the Army or
by any of the officials hereinafter designated,
and it shall furthermore be the duty of said
United States attorneys to report to the Attorney
General of the United States the action taken
by him against offenders so reported, and a
transcript of such reports shall be transmitted
to the Secretary of the Army by the Attorney
General; and for the better enforcement of
the said provisions and to facilitate the detection
and bringing to punishment of such offenders,
the officers and agents of the United States
in charge of river and harbor improvements,
and the assistant engineers and inspectors
employed under-, them by authority of the Secretary
of the Army, and the United States collectors
of customs and other revenue officers shall
have power and authority to swear out process,
and to arrest and take into custody, with or
without process,any person or persons who may
commit any of the acts or offenses prohibited
by the said sections, or who may
violate any of the provisions of the same:
Provided,that no person shall be arrested without
process for any offense not committed in the
presence of some one of the aforesaid officials:
And provided further, that whenever any arrest
is made under such sections, the person so arrested
shall be brought forthwith before a commissioner,
judge, or court of the United States for examination
of the offenses alleged against him; and such
commissioner, judge, or court shall proceed in
respect thereto as authorized by law in case
of crimes against the United States. (33 U.S.C.
413, 30 Stat. 1153) .
Historically, the Act has been used not to stimulate issuance
or denial of permits, but rather to punish some (but by no means
all) of those engaging in occasional activities detrimental
to the water ways. .. Between 1899 and 1970, astonishingly
enough, only about 400 permits were granted by the Corps for
discharge outfalls under Section 10, and only 4 for actual discharges
finder Section 13! -{The Corps has,by contrast, been issuing
somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000 permits annually for dredging
and filling.) Recent developments, spurred by a proposal from
-------
president Nixon for a permit program, indicate that the
future emphasis may be different.
Litigation Under the Refuse Act
Over the years since 1899, the strength of the Refuse Act
has grown with judicial interpretation. Since the most significant
decisions have been made since 1960, we focus on the recent period
in our discussion.
In U.S. v Republic Steel Corp. (362 U.S. 482 (1960), the
Supreme Court of the United States stated in an opinion written
by Justice William 0. Douglas that "sewage" was the only substance
exempt from the prohibitions of Section 13 of the 1899 law. In
this case, the Republic Steel Corporation and two other companies
were enjoined from further dumping industrial wastes (consisting
of solids suspended in the water) into the Calumet River in Illinois
and were also ordered to dredge the river of all wastes already
dumped, in order to restore the river to a navigable depth of
21 feet. (The wastes which had accumulated in the Calumet over
a period of years had reduced the river depth to 17 feet in some
places and 12 feet in others. Consequently, the build-;up was con-
sidered to be an "obstruction" under Section 10 of the 1899 law) .
The Court quoted the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said,
"A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure," and warned
against giving the Act a "narrow, cramped reading."
A 1966 case, U.S. v Standard Oil Co., held that "refuse matter"
did not mean merely worthless, useless matter. The Supreme Court
reversed the decision of the District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, which had held that commercially valuable 100-octane
aviation gasoline dumped by Standard Oil into the St. Johns River
-------
did not come under the designation "refuse matter." In this
case Justice Douglas wrote, "Oil is oil and whether usable or not
by industrial standards it has the same deleterious effect on
waterways. . .There is nothing more deserving of the label 'refuse'
than oil spilled into a river."
The following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit held in U.S. v Esso Standard Oil Co. of Puerto Rico that
diesel oil spilled on the ground and carried by gravity to the sea
was a criminal offense according to the second clause of Section
13 of the 1899 law, even though the oil spill did not create a
clear impediment to navigation.
A 1969 U.S. District Court case dealt with the matter of
procedure under the Refuse Act. The Interlake Steel Corporation,
charged in U.S. v Interlake Steel Corporation with dumping iron
particles and "an oily substance" into the Little Calumet River
in Illinois, moved for dismissal of charges because the information
leading to prosecution by the U.S. Attorney was supplied by the Coast
Guard, which was not designated by the 1899 law as a supplier of
such information. The District Court denied the motion and stated
that information leading to prosecution under the Refuse Act does
not have to be supplied by the Corps of Engineers or the Secretary
of the Army, although they were specifically mentioned in the Act.
Even more significant, the Court contended that the Water Quality
Act of 1965, which called for setting regional water quality standards,
did not relax any provisions of the 1899 law. Finally, the Court
said that dumping prohibited waste into navigable waters does not
-------
have to be done "willfully, intentionally, knowingly, or negli-
gently" to justify a conviction. This decision disallowed Interlake's
defense of accidental error and marked a break with the usual policy
of non-prosecution for small accidental spills followed by the
Corps of Engineers.
A recent case in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, added
environmental teeth to Section 10 of the 1899 law. In that case,
Zabel v Tabb, two landowners sued the Corps District Engineer, Col.
R.P. Tabb, to compel him to .grant them a permit to dredge and fill
their property (which lay under the Boc Ciega Bay in Florida) in
order to build a trailer park. Although the plaintiff succeeded
at the District Court level, Col. Tabb appealed and obtained a
reversal in the higher court. In that decision, the Court said
that a permit for a landfill could be denied on ecological grounds
alone, even though the proposed fill would not interfere with
navigation. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the 1899 Rivers and
Harbors Act were all cited in the decision.
-------
CASE (WITH
CITATION)
DISPUTE UNDER
LITIGATION
DECISION
SIGNIFICANCE
U.S. v. Republic Steel
Corp. (362 U.S. 482(1960).
Republic Steel Corp.
and 2 other companies
dumping wastes (solids)
in suspension into the
Calumet River over a
period of years, reduc-
ing the river depth to
17 feet in some areas and
12 feet in others
U.S. Supreme Court
in opinion by Justice
William 0. Douglas
said:
1) Only "sewage"
exempt under Section
13 ("Refuse Act")
2) Companies enjoined
from further dumping
under Section 10, on
theory that build-up
of wastes constituted
an "obstruction" to
navigation.
3) Companies required
to remove wastes from
river and restore
navigable depth of
21 feet.
1) Clear statement
that liquids with solids
in suspension are not
exempt unless they are
"sewage," i.e., human
wastes.
2) First use of in-
junction under Section
10, and definition of
"obstruction" as not
necessarily structural.
3) Douglas' use of
quotation from Oliver
Wendell Holmes ("A river
is more than an amenity,
it is a treasure.) and
warning against giving
the 1899 Act a "narrow
cramped reading." This
section of opinion has
been cited in several
subsequent cases.
-------
CASE (WITH
CITATION)
DISPUTE UNDER
LITIGATION
DECISION
SIGNIFICANCE
U.S. v. Interlake
Steel Corp. 297 F. Supp.
912 (1969)
Interlake dumped iron
particles and "oily
substance" into little
Calumet River in Illinois,
Information leading to
prosecution supplied by
the Coast Guard.
U.S.District Court for 111.:
Motion to dismiss denied
because Court said infor-
mation does not have to
come from Corps of Engineers.
Court also said Water
Quality Act of 1965 didn't
inhibit enforcement of
Refuse Act. Defense of
accidental spill not valid.
1) Information on
violation can be
supplied to U.S.
Attorney by anyone.
2) Refuse Act in
no way weakened by
passage of 1965
Water Quality Act.
3) Spills don't
have to be made
"willfully, intent-
ionally, knowingly,
or negligently"
to be prosecuted.
Zabel v. Tabb, 430, F. 2d
199 (1970).
Landowners sued Corps'
District Engineer to
compel him to grant
permit to dredge and fill
in navigable waters to
build trailer park.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th
Circuit: Corps, under
mandate of National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969
and Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, could deny
permit even where no inter-
ference with navigation,
flood control, or power
production anticipated.
Ecological factors
alone are adequate
grounds for denying
permit required
under Section 10
of Rivers and Harbor
Act of 1899.
-------
CASE CWITH
CITATION)
DISPUTE UNDER
LITIGATION
DECISION
SIGNIFICANCE
U.S. v. Standard
Oil Co., 384, U.S
224 (1966).
Accidental spill of
aviation gasoline
into St. Johns River
in Florida
U.S. Supreme Court:
The gasoline in question
did, indeed, qualify as
"refuse" despite the fact
that it had commercial
value at the time it was
dumped. Standard Oil
convicted.
"Refuse" not limited
to worthless matter
thrown away. List
of "refuse" is its
effect on the waterway
Douglas wrote, "Oil
is oil, and whether
usable or not by
industrial standards
it has the same
deteterious effect
on waterways...There
is nothing more
deserving of the label
'refuse' than oil
spilled into a river."
U.:
v. Esso Standard
Oil Co. of Puerto Rico
(375 F. 2d 621 (1967) .
Diesel oil spilled
on the ground and
carried by gravity
into the sea.
U.S. Court of Appeals for
Third Circuit: Spill un-
lawful under second clause
of Section 13, outlawing
dumping "on the bank of any
navigable water...when the
same shall be liable to be
washed into such navigable
water..."
Conviction can be
obtained even though
no clear impediment
to navigation created
by the spill.
-------
PRIVATE CITIZENS AND THE REFUSE ACT
As noted earlier, the Refuse Act and its companion, Section
10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, call upon the U.S. Attorney
to "vigorously prosecute all offenders" and to pay half the fine
to "the person or persons giving information which shall lead to
conviction." This means that local environmental groups have
a unique opportunity to be watchdogs over the waterways in their
immediate area and to take action against any polluters.
By providing information to the United States Attorney regarding
violators of the Refuse Act, citizens can not only do their
part to initiate legal action, but they may also gain a monetary
reward in the process. What is more, an old legal arrange-
ment known as qui tarn permits citizens to sue the violator
directly for their portion of the fine if the government fails
to take action.
Citizens bringing action under the Refuse Act
should begin by determining whether the apparent violator has
a permit to dump refuse into the waterway or otherwise to
"alter or modify1' the waterway. If there is no permit, or if
it appears that the terms of the permit may be violated, citizens
should submit the following information in writing, duly
notarized, to the United States Attorney:
1. The nature of the refuse material discharged.
2. The source and method of discharge.
3. The location, name, and address of the company, person,
or persons causing or contributing to the discharge.
4. The name of the waterway into which the discharge
occurred.
-------
5. Each date on which the discharge occurred.
6. The names and addresses of all persons known to the
citizen, including himself, who saw or knows about the
discharges and could testify about them if necessary.
7. A statement that the discharge is not authorized by
Corps permit. If a permit was granted, the statement
should Set forth facts showing that the alleged
violator is not complying with one or more of the
conditions of the permit.
8. The navigability of the waterway at the area of
discharge. If the waterway into which the discharge
occurred is not commonly known as ''navigable, " or is
a tributary to a navigable waterway, the statement
should set forth facts to show its status as a navigable
waterway or tributary thereof.
Written statements should be augmented by photographs
and samples of the substance discharged whenever possible. The
United States Attorney may be reminded by citizens that, in
addition to conviction and penalties, the government may seek
injunctions under the Refuse Act, to compel violators to:
1. Preclude future discharges.
2. Remove material already discharged.
3. Apply for a permit from the Corps of Engineers unless
he promptly ceases all dumping.
After the citizen has provided the above information to
the U.S. Attorney, he is entitled to receive his share of
the fine upon conviction ;of the polluter. However, if the
government fails to prosecute the alleged violator, the citizen
can file his own qui tarn suit. "Qui tarn" comes from the Latin
-------
"qui tarn pro domino rege quam pro se ipso sequitur," meaning
"who brings the action as well for the king as for himself".
(A qui tarn suit is one initiated by a private citizen in behalf
of the government(which has the statutory power to prosecute) as
well as for himself(when he has a statutory right to part of the
fine). Qui tarn is an accepted legal practice going back to
14th century England. Until the 19th century, enforcement of
misdemeanor charges having to do with such personal misdeeds as
drunkenness, indebtedness, adultery, and the like depend almost
exclusively on informers, who were given a portion of the fine.
Even today, customs and income tax laws are enforced mainly
through the use of paid informers. While there may be problems
regarding interference with privacy and civil liberties in such
cases, one could hardly complain of that in a case involving the
dumping of wastes into a river.
The issue of qui tarn suits in the environmental area has
not yet been resolved. During 1970 about half a dozen qui tarn
suits were filed under the Refuse Act, and while most of them
are still pending, adverse decisions were made in early 1971 by
District Courts in Wisconsin, Texas, and Washington State. The
Wisconsin case was brought by Congressman Henry Reuss, a long-
time environmentalist, against the Peter Cooper Cooperation and
the Moss-American Company- Despite Congressman Reuss1 contention
that he had reported Refuse Act violations to the Department of
Justice, and that Justice had failed to prosecute, the District
Court ruled that private citizens did not have the right to sue
-------
for their share of the fine. (Reuss v. Moss-American, Inc. Suits
70-C-485 and 70-C-486, Eastern Dist. Wisconsin, February 23, 1971).
In the Washington case, the District Court ruled in a very
brief opinion that attorney Martin Durning did not have standing
to sue I.T.T. -Rainier under the Refuse Act. (Civil Suit 9670,
Western District, Washington, October 6, 1970). That case is
presently under appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit.
Phineas Indritz, Chief Counsel of the Conservation and Natural
Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Opera-
tions, has suggested that citizens still have recourse even if
the government fails to prosecute and the courts continue to hold
that citizens do not have qui tarn rights under the Refuse Act.
Recent decisions giving citizens standing to sue for protection of
the environment, Mr. Indritz says, make it possible for citizens
to seek injunctions under the Refuse Act on a theory of damages.
That theory holds that any criminal statue which is established
to protect a group of people (as the Refuse Act was intended to
protect all the people from pollution) gives that group the right
to expect such protection. When it is not forthcoming from the
Federal government, the people may sue for damages. Thus a
citizens' group seeking to go to court for clean water using the
Refuse Act as the basis for their case may try any one of the
three avenues we have discussed: 1) providing information to the
U.S. Attorney to encourage the government to prosecute; 2) filing
a qui tarn suit; 3) filing suit to recover damages. The latter two
-------
alternatives are suited to groups with an appreciation for
innovative legal action and a budget sufficient to cover court
costs if the case fails on its merits.
The House Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee
has published a booklet called Qui Tarn Actions and the 1899
Refuse Act; Citizen Lawsuits Against Polluters of the Nation's
Waterways. It explains the precedents and possibilities for
litigation under the Refuse Act in greater detail.it is available
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, price 20*.
-------
SUB SEQUENT LEGISLATION
The Refuse Act has b ,en augmented, but not sup eroded,
by several important pieces of environmental legislation.
Later laws, have made it clear that the Corps has the authority
to deny permits or to prosecute under the Refuse Act when
a discharging of wastes or any other action affecting the
waterways would have a detrimental effect upon the environment,
even where there is no impediment with anchorage or navigation.
The Fish and Wild 1 i fe Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act as amended in
1958 ,(72 Stat. 563, P.L. 85-624, 16 U.S.C. 661) requires
the Corps to consider the effect of its water resource projects
on fish and wildlife. The law also requires the Corps to consult
with,the Fish and Wildlife Service when considering applications
for permits under the 1899 law, both Section 10 and Section 13
(the Refuse Act). The Fish And Wildlife Act states a general
policy of:
...recognizing the vital contribution of our
wildlife resources to the Nation, the increasing
public interest and significance thereof due
to expansion of our national economy and other
factors, and to provide that wildlife conser-
vation shall receive equal consideration and~be
coordinated with other features of water-resource
development programs . . .(emphasis added)
To assure that wildlife is given the consideration and
protection tue law advocates, Section 2(a) of the Act states
that:
-------
...whenever the waters of any stream or other
body of water are proposed...to be impounded,
diverted, the channel deepened, or...otherwise
controlled or modified for any purpose whatever
...by any public or private agency under Federal
permit or license...such...agency first shall
consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior...with a
view to the conservation of wildlife resources by
preventing loss or damage to such resources...
(emphasis adde d) ~~"
While the dredging, filling, obstructing and otherwise
altering of the waterways mentioned in Section 10 of the 1899
law are most clearly covered in the requirements of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, the dumping of refuse can also
be considered covered under the section which reads "otherwise
controlled or modified for any purpose whatever," since dis-
chargad wastes definitely modify the quality of the water.
Indeed, the Corps generally does consult the Office of Fish and
Wildlife before granting permits. However, the law does not
explicitly require that the Corps accept the advice of Fish
and Wildlife. In one infamous case, the permit for Hunting
Creek landfill in Alexandria, Virginia, certain high officials
within the Interior Department ignored the warnings of the
Fish and Wildlife Service staff about the adverse effect the
landfill would have on wildlife. These officials later cited
political pressures as the reason for Interior 's recommendation
that the Corps grant the permit to two private developers.
That case seems to have been a classic example of political
gamesmanship and internal arguments within Interior. A sub-
sequent investigation by the House Committee on Government
Operations and a citizen lawsuit against the State of Virginia,
brought about a revocation of the permit. The Congressional
-------
committee considered the question of how much weight the Corps
should give to Fish andv'Wildlife reports. Clearly, the intent
of the law is not merely to require that such surveys be made
on a pro forma basis, but to assure that the reports actually
contribute to the preservation of fish and wildlife. Otherwise,
it is hard to explain the language of the law, which says the
Corps' consultation with the Office of Fish and Wildlife should
be made "with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources
by preventing loss or damage to such resources ..."
The Hunting Creek case is a good case study for citizens.
We suggest that interested people obtain copies of the report
of the Committee on Government Operations, The Permit for Landfill
in Hunting Creek: A Debacle in Conservation, published as House
Report 91-113, March 24,1969. It may be obtained from any
Congressman or from the committee office. The Hunting Creek
case is also analyzed with great insight in Joseph L. Sax^S book,
Defending the Environment, N.Y., Alfred A. Knopf, 1971 and
Professor Sax's article in the February 1971 issue of Esquire
magazine, entitled "Little Sturm und Drang at Hunting Creek."
Water Quality Act of 1965 and Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970
The Water Quality Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 903. P.L. 39-234.
33 U.S.C. 466) established the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (now the Federal Water Quality Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency) and gave the states a certain
period of time in which to establish water quality standards
and require private users of the waterways to comply with these
-------
standards. As a District Court stated in U.S. v. Interlake
Steel Corporation (1969), the Water Quality Act in no way
relaxed the provisions of the Refuse Act,
The states have been given further power by the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 91, P.L. 91-224)
which requires that applicants for Corps permits receive
certification from their states (or the appropriate interstate
water quality agency) as proof of their compliance with state
water quality standards. Under the terms of the 1970 law, the
Corps may not grant permits for discharges which have not
been properly certified by the state or interstate agency.
When a permit is granted, the facility must be inspected by
the state before discharging begins. The permit may be sus-
pended whenever the facility is found to be in violation of
current standards because of 1) changes in the facility it-
self; 2) changes in the characteristics of the water into
which the discharge is made; or 3) changes in the applicable
water quality standards.
1967 Memorandum of Understanding
In 1967, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of the Interior reached a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
their mutual responsibilities under the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899- Although the 1967 Memorandum lacks the force of law,
it is nonetheless official policy of the two Departments. Thr
Memorandum was executed
In recognition of the responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Army under sections iu and 13
"of the act ot March 3, 1B79. . .-relatinqnEo~TKe
control of dredging, filling, and excavation
in the navigable waters of the United States,
-------
and the control of refuse in such waters,
and the interrelationship of those responsibili-
ties with the responsibilities~~o'f the Secretary
of the Interior under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. '. .the Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956. . .relating to the control'and prevention
of water pollution in such waters and the con-
servation of the Nation's natural resources
and related environment, including fish and
wildlife and recreational values therein. . .
The Memorandum of Understanding established procedures to be
followed in cases of joint responsibility for regulation of
the waterways:
1. When the Corps receives a permit application, it
must send notice to "all interested parties", including the
Federal Water Quality Office, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, and the appropriate state
agencies.
2. The regional director of the Department of the
Interior must then make the appropriate studies and advise
the Corps' District Engineer whether the action under con-
sideration for a permit would violate water quality standards
i
or "unreasonablv impair natural resources or the related
environment".
3. The District Engineer must hold public hearings
on permit applications whenever it appears that "hearings
are desirable to afford all interested parties full opportunity
to be heard on objections raised".
4. When the reports from the Interior Department
indicate that a proposed action will violate water quality
standards or impair the environment, the District Engineer
-------
must encourage the applicant to make the necessary changes
to remedy the problems. Failing that, th;< District Engineer
must pass the matter along to the Chief of Engineers for a
decision.
5. The Chief of Engineers will make a final consultation
with the Under Secretary of the Interior on cases with unresolved
problems or controversies.
6. When the matter remains unresolved after consultation
between the Chief of Engineers and the Under Secretary of the
Interior, the final decision will rest with the Secretary of
the Army, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
As we noted in the last chapter, Section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. &53, P.L. 91-190)
requires that detailed statements of environmental impact be
prepared to accompany "every recommendation or report on pro-
posals for legislation aixd other major Federal actions sig-
nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment".
The problem, in terms of the corps" permit power, is to deter-
mine whether each and every permit application constitutes
a "major Federal action" and therefore requires a 102 statement.
If the Corps establishes a program to force all parties dis-
charging refuse into the waterways to obtain permits, then the
preparation and review of 102 statements to accompany all appli-
cations would be a cumbersome process, to say the least. It
seems clear that the line must be drawn somewhere. Citizens
may wish to exert pressure on the Corps to issue 102 statements
-------
to accompany permit applications when the environmental impact
of the proposed activity would be widespread, perhaps crossing
state lines. The Corps current policy concerning environmental
statements in permit cases is described in a new Corps pamphlet
for permit applicants:
Section 102 (2) (C) statements will not be required
in permit cases where it is likely that the pro-
posed discharge will not have any significant
impact on the human environment. Moreover, the
Council on Environmental Quality has advised
that such statements will not be required where
the only impact of proposed discharge or deposit will
be on water quality and related water quality
considerations because these matters are specifi-
cally addressed under sections 21 (b) and (c), the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
However, such statements shall be required in
connection with proposed discharges or deposits
which may have a significant environmental impact
unrelated to water quality. In cases in which a
Section 102(2) (C) statement may be required, the
report of the District Engineer accompanying
any case referred to higher authority will contain
a separate section addressing the environmental
impact of the proposed discharge or deposit, if any,
and, if issuance of a permit is recommended, a
draft Section 102(2)(C) statement should be attached.
In all other cases in which a Section 102(2) (C)
statement is required the District Engineer shall
draft/ consult with, and obtain the comments of
any Federal, State and local agency which has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved.
In cases where the preparation of a Section 102
(2)(C) statement is necessary, the District Engineer
may require the applicant to furnish such infor-
mation as he may consider necessary to prepare the
required statement. (From draft of Corps pamphlet,
"Permits for Discharges or Deposits into Navigable
Waters or Tributaries Thereof; pp. 32-33.)
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY AND THE REFUSE ACT
In June, 1970, the Justice Department announced that
it would not initiate legal action against violators of the
-------
Refuse Act if the violators are engaged in any sort of pollution
abatement program under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. While this may seem fair for the polluter, it has been
widely viewed as a serious dent in the power of the Refuse
Act. The abatement proceedings spelled out by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act are very long and drawn-out,
consisting mainly of conferences between the violating parties
and federal officials aimed at arriving at a schedule for im-
proving the polluter's practices. In the case of hazardous sub-
stances or serious threats to the very life of the waterways,
more immediate action is needed. Indeed, even the Justice
Department apparently found its guidelines too lax, for it
initiated Refuse Act prosecution against several companies in
August, 1970, for discharging mercury into the nation's rivers.
Environmental activists are in general agreement about the value
of the language of the Refuse Act, which requires the U.S.
Attorney to "vigorously prosecute all offenders", and question
whether the Justice Department's policy is a violation of that
mandate. Interlake Steel would seem to support that conclusion,
since the Court's opinion in that case said specifically that
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in no way weakened the
provision of the Refuse Act.
The Justice Department issued new guidelines in early
1971. These guidelines will be discussed in detail later in
the chapter along with the permit program proposed by President
Nixon in Executive Order 11574 (December 23, 1970). The new
guidelines do not state specifically whether the policy of non-
prosecution will continue, but there are suggestions that it will,
-------
A NEW PERMIT PROGRAM UNDER THE REFUSE ACT
Noting that only a minute percentage of the estimated
40,000 to 100,000 industries (and others) who dump refuse into
the nation's streams and rivers have obtained permits for their
activities, President Nixon proposed on December 23, 1970, that
the Corps of Engineers begin a serious effort to force universal
compliance with the permit requirements of the Refuse Act. In
Executive Order 11574, he directed the Corps to participate in a
permit program in cooperation with the Environmental Protection
Agency as well as other Federal agencies and the state water
quality agencies. In the proposed permit program, the permit
applicants will be required to obtain certification from their
state water quality agency as proof of their compliance with the
state's water quality standards. These standards, it will be
remembered, were established under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1965. Their strength varies from state to state.
The Environmental Protection Agency has been directed
to review the state certification of each applicant, in the
appropriate EPA regional office, which will then advise the District
Office of the Corps as to its recommendation for granting or denying
a permit on water quality grounds. The Corps of Engineers must
accept the recommendation of the Environmental Protection
Agency in the water quality aspects of a permit application, but
it may make its own decision on the navigational aspects. It
may also make a final decision on matters pertaining to the preser-
vation of fish and wildlife, although of course the terms of the
-------
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the 1967 Memorandum of
Understanding require a consultation with the Interior Department
in measuring effects of a proposed action on fish and wildlife.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a
part of the Commerce Department, may also be consulted on
environmental questions outside the water quality area. The
Corps will have administrative responsibility for the program.
The permit program, as proposed by the President and incor-
porated into new regulations within the Corps of Engineers,
will require applicants for permits under the Refuse Act to meet
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with state water quality standards.
2. Agreement to comply with any changes in water quality
standards after the granting of the permit.
3. Compliance with conditions established by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965:
a. A periodic demonstration of continuing
compliance.
b. Periodic sampling of discharges.
c. Periodic reports on the nature and quantity
of discharges
The permits would be issued by the District Engineer of
the Corps, but the Regional Representative of the Environmental
Protection Agency would be empowered to advise the District
Engineer as to the recommended duration of the permit, taking
into account the nature of the discharge, the plans/-for the river
basin? and changes in the technology of water treatment.
Once granted, the permit could be suspended or revoked
under the following circumstances:
1. A serious violation of the conditions of the permit.
2*. A discovery that the substance being discharged
is hazardous to public health and safety.
-------
The Justice Department has written new guidelines for
litigation under the Refuse Act, to tie in with the permit
program. The guidelines state that United States Attorneys
may initiate legal action on complaints of violations of the
Refuse Act received from either the District Engineer of the
Corps or the Regional Representative of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Complaints from other sources, such as
private citizens, will be referred to the District Engineer
and the Regional Representative of the Environmental Protection
Agency for a decision as to whether legal action is required.
It would appear that the Justice Department foresees less
reliance on litigation, since the denial, suspension, or re-
vocation of a permit would be a preferable means for regulating
the discharging of wastes into the rivers.
Nearly everyone agrees that a broad permit program is
an excellent idea and is clearly within the intentions of the
1899 law. Many environmentalists are, however, critical of
certain aspects of the program as presently planned.
For example, the Corps' regulations state that permit
applications for existing discharges must be filed by July 1, 1971,
but prior legislative mandates do not require facilities which
were built or under construction prior to 1970 to obtain state
certification of water quality until 1973. Since state certi-
fication is the first requirement for granting a permit,
this means that most applications will drag out for well over
two years. In the meanwhile, the industries involved will
continue to pollute our waterways, and it i_s_ most unlikely that
-------
the Justice Department or the courts would even consider a
suit against the polluters while a permit application is pending.
Applications for new discharges must be filed at least
120 days before the discharges can be started. A check with the
Corps' New England Division (which has no District Officers
under it) in. mid-June, 1971, revealed that 1,548 applications
for permits in New England had been received under the new
program.
Problems of public disclosure are causing the greatest
concern among environmentalists, Plans for the permit program do
not state at what point the applications for permits, or the
state water quality judgments, are to be made public. At present,
citizens need only find out from the Corps" District Engineer
whether an alleged violator has a permit before they begin
legal action. During the application process, which may drag
out for well over a year,- it may be impossible to find out
the status of the application. Citizens may need to contact
not only the District Office of the Corps, but also the state
water quality agency, the EPA regional office, the EPA and the
Corps in Washington before they can determine how a polluter
is complying with the law. Even after a permit is granted,
citizens may not be able to tell whether discharges being made
into a river are in violation with the terms of the permit.
The permit program, if carefully thought out, can be a
powerful weapon against the polluters of our waterways.
But unless the program ensures strict requirements and strict
-------
enforcement, the permits granted under the Refuse Act may turn
out to be "licenses to pollute," as some critics have suggested.
Citizens will want to watch carefully as this new approach is
enacted.
In June, 1971, the Corps published its official pamphlet
for use by all permit applicants. The pamphlet is divided
into three Parts; Part I is to assist applicants in applying
for authority to perform work or place structures in or across
navigable waters, Part II is to help in applying for permits
to discharge or deposit materials into navigable waters and
tributaries thereof, Part III contains a copy of the Corps
application form (ENG FORM 4345) with instructions as to its
preparation and the information required to be submitted by the
applicant. The pamphlet also discusses the relevant laws and
how they pertain to the Corps permit authority.
Citizens interested in permit cases may obtain the pamphlet
from the nearest District Office of the Corps of Engineers. It is
a valuable tool for understanding the permit authority and the
application procedure.
-------
CHAPTER V
The Dollars and Sense of Corps Projects
Nearly everybody believes that environmental factors should
be considered in the evaluation of Army Corps projects. The con-
sensus disappears, however, at the first sight of the dollar sign.
Such elusive factors as the effects of projects on fish and wildlife,
anticipated population growth, future recreational potential and
demand", future land values, and aesthetics, when assigned monetary
figures and counted among the benefits and costs of a Corps project
tend to bring disagreements. For example, how can one analyze the
cost of destroying a waterfowl nesting area?
It is very important for the concerned citizens' group to under-
stand the economic evaluation process applied by the Corps to its
projects so that the group can make its own analysis and compare its
figures with those supplied by the Corps. We have emphasized the
importance of accuracy and expertise in citizens' analyses of Corps
of Engineers projects. Nowhere is this more important than in the
economic area. If an environmental group can add to its general
arguments for resource conservation the additional strength of sound
economic analysis, the chances for success in affecting project out-
comes are considerably greater. Some of the basic tools and informa-
tion needed for making an economic analysis are included in this chap-
ter. The professional economist will, of course, need to obtain more
detailed information prior to making a formal project economic
-------
analysis. The chapter is intended to serve as a general introduction
for the layman.
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
The Army Corps of Engineers has been using the benefit-cost
analysis system to determine the economic feasibility of Federal
Water resource projects since 1936, when the Flood Control Act was
passed by Congress. Section One of the Act (U.S.C. 33, 49 stat. 1570,
June 22, 1936) required that:
. . .the Federal government should improve or participate
in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries,
including watersheds thereof, for flood control purposes if
the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of
the estimated costs. . .
This type of analysis is basically a comparison between annual
estimated dollar benefits and annual dollar costs of a proposed project.
The sum of all the benefits is divided by the sum of all costs to
obtain the benefit-cost (b/c) ratio. A project is not considered
economically feasible unless its b/c ratio is at least 1:1, that is,
the project must provide at least one dollar's worth of benefits for
every dollar spent. The Corps of Engineers computes the b/c ratio of
a proposed project as part of its planning procedure. The Office
of Management and Budget reviews the Corps' data and conclusions
several times during project planning. The b/c ratio is a creature
of change, however; it changes many times during the planning phase,
and even during construction of a project. Citizens will need to keep
a careful eye on the b/c ratio and analyze any fluctuations to determine
what changes in the project or the conditions surrounding it have
brought about the variation.
-------
It is essential, if the b/c ratio is to have any meaning,
that all benefits and costs be isolated and evaluated carefully.
Dr. Barry Field, who did an independent economic evaluation
of the proposed Logan Dam Reservoir Project in Ohio and in it
disagreed sharply with many aspects of the Corps' economic
analysis, pointed out that "a precondition to any benefit-cost
study is a complete specification of the project in physical
terms." In other words, before benefits and costs can be
computed, it must be made perfectly clear just what the
project will entail, in terms of both physical resources consumed
and natural consequences.
The President's Water Resources Council is the executive
branch entity which sets forth regulations and guidelines for
planning and evaluating water resource projects. Established by
the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, the Council consists
of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, Army,
and Health, Education and Welfare, the Chairman of the Federal
Power Commission and the Director of the Environmental Protection
Agency-An ad. hoc interagency commission preceding the Council
provided guidelines for determining the economic feasibility of
a project in a document entitled Policies, Standards, and Procedures
in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use
and Development of Water and Related Land Resources, published
as Senate Document 97. It was adopted as an official administrative
regulation by the President on May 29, 1962. The guidelines
remain in effect at this writing, although new proposals have been
prepared by the Water Resources Council. The possible changes
will be discussed later in this chapter.
-------
Senate Document 97, Section V (c) (2), states that a
project is justified economically if the following conditions
are met:
(a) Tangible benefits exceed project economic costs.
(b) Each separable unit or purpose provides benefits
at least equal to its costs.
(c) The scope of development is such as to provide the
maximum net benefits .
(d) There is no more economical means, evaluated on a
comparable basis, of accomplishing the same purpose
or purposes which would be precluded from development
if the plan were undertaken. This limitation refers
only to those alternative possibilities that would
be physically or economically precluded if the
project is undertaken.
It should be!noted that these four conditions can justify
an increase in the size of a proposed project. A smaller scale
project might have a higher b/c ratio; that is, it would be more
efficient in terms of dollars gained per dollar spent. But
according to the rules laid out in Senate Document'97, the
b/c ratio need not be maximized as long as it is at least 1:1.
Net benefits, on the other hand, are to be increased to the highest1
possible level. By enlarging a project, the Corps may predict
a greater net benefit even though the project may have a lower
b/c ratio than if designed on a smaller scale.
BENEFITS:
Benefits are the favorable or desirable consequences of
a project. Senate Document 97 defines benefits as "increases
or gains, net of associated or induced costs, in the value of
goods and services which result from conditions with the project,
as compared with conditions without the project." Section V, (D) (1)
-------
Tangible benefits are those which can be expressed in monetary
terms derived from either their market value or comparison with the
value of alternative means that would provide the same services.
Other benefits are described as being intangible when there
are no ready means of measuring their value accurately in monetary
terms, although they do have real value. Intangible benefits include
such things as the protection of lives, national security, and an
increased feeling of safety from natural hazards such as floods.
Senate Document 97 points out that while intangible benefits cannot
be fully evaluated in monetary terms or by formal analysis techniques,
they usually contain a part which is readily measurable. The remain-
ing part is to be evaluted on the basis of "informed judgment."
Section V (D) (3) .
In addition to the distinction between the tangible and intan-
gible, benefits can be categorized in another way—between primary and
secondary benefits. The former are defined as the net value of goods
and services directly resulting from a project. For example, the
amount of damage reduction resulting from a flood control project is
a primary benefit of that project. Secondary benefits are the indi-
rect benefits of a project such as increased profits to business and
industry that develop on the flood plain after protection. However,
secondary-benefits are rarely claimed by the Corps except in Appalachia
Region projects.
COSTS ;
Costs are essentially the opposite of benefits and can also
be broken down into two major types. Project economic costs are the
-------
sum of installation, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.
Project economic costs are usually the most explicit since they
are determined by present construction costs, cost of labor and
materials, and other "hard" figures, and are therefore easily quan-
tified.
Induced costs are defined as all "uncompensated adverse effects
caused by the construction and operation of a program or project."
Section V (F) (4). Induced costs include such factors as the in-
creased cost of government services (schools, roads, police)
necessary for an area experiencing development as a result of a
water project. Secondary costs and benefits have long been an area
of controversy in analysis of public expenditure, largely because
their inexact nature allows much room for debate about their true
values.
Costs, like benefits, may be tangible or intangible. Tangible
costs include all those costs that can have a monetary value put
on them; project economic costs are a good example. Intangible costs,
on the other hand, are dealt with differently. They include
environmental deterioration resulting from a project or reduction in
aesthetic value of an area. It is very difficult (and sometimes im-
possible) to apply a monetary value to these things, although it is
generally accepted that they do have real value. For simplification,
only tangible benefits and costs will be discussed in this chapter.
-------
PROJECT PLANNING LIFE AND DISCOUNT RATE
Another basic concept to be considered by economists is
the planning life of a project. This is the period of time over
which a water resource project will serve a useful purpose.
Senate Document 97 establishes 100 years as the maximum permissable
planning time of a water resource project, stating that the period
of time designated should be the shorter of either the physical
or economic life of the project. Section V (G) (2). The
100-year maximum is used on large projects such as dams and
canals, while shorter periods are used for small projects.
The project planning life is used to compute the value of a
project during its entire lifetime in terms of average annual
benefits and costs. Basically, this is done by determining the
present value (that is, at the beginning of the project life)
of the cash flows occuring at different points in time during
the life of the project. The reason for computing the present
value can be recognized by noting, for example, that a dollar today
is worth more than a dollar ten years from now, since it can
be invested (at some interest rate) and after ten years will
yield something more than a dollar. Similarly, a dollar ten
years from now is worth something less than a dollar today.
Therefore the value for each year simply cannot be added.
The "present value" of a project is determined by using the
"capital recovery factor." or the amount of principal and
interest paid annually on a debt at the applicable interest rate.
-------
The procedure for computing the present1 value of a cost or bene-
fit occuring at some future time involves the same kinds of stan-
dard formulas that are used in computing compound interest on
savings in a bank. Each of these future values is determined by
following the procedure of discounting. The process, in simpli-
fied terms, looks something like this:
A (present value for 1st year @ 5 1/8%*)
+B (A X present value for 2 years @ 5 1/8%)
+C (A X present value for 3 years @ 5 1/8%)
+D (A X present value for 4 years @ 5 1/8%)
+etc. for 100 years . . .
TOTAL BENEFITS
* (or whatever the current interest rate is)
For example, if we assume a present value of $1000, the aver-
age annual benefits would look something like this, leading to a
computation of total benefits:
Present Value $1000
Year 1 951
Year 2 905
Year 3 861
Year 4 819
Year 5 799
(etc. for 100 years)
The same procedure is used for calculating average annual
costs and total costs.
Once the present value has been established the Corps uses a "cap-
ital recovery factor" formula to put present values in terms of
average annual values over the span of the projects economic life.
The formula used is:
i(1 + i)n = Capital Recovery
(1 + i)11 - 1 Factor
Where i = current interest
rate
n = economic life of
project, i.e.
25, 50 or 100 years
-------
It turns out that when using such formulas, an increase
in the interest rate will increase average annual costs and decrease
average annual benefits. The majority of costs of most water
resource projects is incurred at the beginning of its economic
life, particularly during construction. Conversely, most future
items are benefits; therefore, a lower .discount rate generally
leads to a higher benefit-cost ratio.
It is interesting to note that, until 1962, the Corps
used a 50-year period as the maximum planning life. The use of
a 100-year economic life for a water resource project seems
to be a rather extreme- case of simplification when considering
the variables involved. Implicit in the use of a century for
the planning life is the belief that enough is known about all
the variables to be able to look 100 years into the future.
This is not possible, without careful consideration of risks
and uncertainties. On the other hand, long-range planning is
a necessity in the land-use and water resources area. What is
emminently needed is method of evaluating the elements of risk
and uncertainty. A commitment to a long-range plan is more
likely to have unfortunate consequences (as a result of risk
and uncertainty) than a short-range plan, and many economists
think that discounting for a 50-year period is all that can
possibly be justified for public water projects.
The new discount (interest) rate of 5 1/8 per cent (established
July 1, '1970) was set by the Water Resources Council (WRC) . The
T
formula used was not the same as that in Senate Document 97,
but was a new formula based on the "yield rate" which generally
-------
gives a higher discount rate. The rate proposed in the new
WRC Special Task Force Standards is 5 1/2 per cent and the formula
used is now officially part of the Corps procedures. The
discount rate has been showing a steady upward trend over the
years, though it is lagging somewhat behind the increases in
private interest rates. Many economists advocate bringing the
water resource rate into line with rates in the private sector
to avoid the expenditure of Federal money on projects which
could not be justified at private investment rates. Citizens
often criticize the Corps' economic studies on specific projects
for their utilization of an unreasonably low discount rate.
This is particularly true when projects are not constructed until
several years after their authorization. Inflation occurring in
intervening years often renders a project infeasible economically,
but by sticking to the interest rate used in the original
benefit/cost computation at the time of authorization, the
Corps can, in effect, ignore the effect of passing time.
Criticism about the low interest rate used in water resource
planning has been leveled at the Water Resource Council, which
sets the rate. The Office of Management and Budget has been
critical even of the most recent increase, stating that it is
insufficient. The Water Resource Council is comprised of the
heads of the various agencies involved in water resource planning
and construction, and some critics feel that the agencies which
build water projects should be separated from the economic policy-
making body concerned with those projects.
-------
COST ALLOCATION
Once a project is found to be feasible, the next step is to
determine how much money will be given to each purpose for
which the project is to be built. The cost allocation process
for a water resource project depends primarily on the purpose
or purposes included in the project. For each purpose there are
specific outlines for cost allocation.
Generally speaking, the Federal government bears the
cost of flood control and navigation functions and shares with
other parties (cost-sharing) the cost of recreation, power
production, and water quality. Water supply is paid for by local
interests.
The procedure used by the Corps for allocating total
project costs to different purposes is the "separable costs-
remaining benefits" (next page)
-------
method. The method is designed to distribute the costs of multi-
purpose project equitably among the various project purposes,, such
as flood control, navigation, recreation, water supply, power
production, and pollution- abatement. TO do this .two things must
be determined:
(1) The separable cost of including each function in the multi-
purpose project;
(2) An equitable distribution of the costs for functions
shared by the whole project and not attributable solely
to a single purpose (residual or remaining joint costs,) .
The separable cost,for each project purpose may be defined as
''the difference between the cost of the multiple purpose project
and the cost of the project with the purpose omitted." In other
words, the separable cost for the flood control segment of a mutli-
purpose project might be expressed as follows:
TOTAL PROJECT COST
- PROJECT COST WITHOUT FLOOD CONTROL
= SEPARABLE COST FOR FLOOD CONTROL
The residual or remaining joint costs are "the difference
between the cost of the multiple-purpose project as a whole and the
total of the separable costs for all project purposes." Residual
costs could be computed as follows:
Separable Cost for Flood Control
Separable Cost for Navigation
Separable Cost for Recreation
Separable Cost for Water Supply
Separable Cost for Power Production
+ Separable Cost for Pollution Abatement
=5 Total of Separable Costs
Total Project Cost
- Total of Separable Costs
= Residual Costs
-------
The residual costs are distributed among the project purposes
in proportion to the benefits limited by alternative cost for that
purpose; that is, the flood-control (or other purpose) benefits
limited by the most economical way of achieving the same flood con-
trol aims in a single-purpose project. Thus, we might allocate re-
sidual costs for each purpose in the following hypothetical case:
The hypothetical project is a dam, to be designed for flood
control, power production, irrigation, and navigation purposes.
The flood control costs are to be borne by the Federal govern-
ment, while the power costs are to be shared with local interests
and irrigation costs are to be handled locally. The total
cost of the project is $1,767,000, and the method we have just
described is used to compute each party's share of the total.
Flood control, it is determined, accounts for 3% of the allocated
residual cost, while power accounts for 62%, irrigation 30%,
and navigation 5%. The following table illustrates the com-
putations for each item and the final determination of cost
allocation.
Once costs are allocated for each purpose, the established
guidelines for cost-sharing between federal and non-federal interests
can then be applied.
-------
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY SEPARABLE COSTS - REMAINING BENEFITS METHOD
(In Thousands of Dollars)
ITEM ]
1. Benefits
2. Alternative Cost
3. Benefits Limited by Alternative
Cost (lesser of items 1 & Z)
4. Separable Costs
5. Remaining Benefits (items 3-4)
6. Allocated Residual Cost
(Item 5 divided by sum of item 5'.s
for all purposes = % of residual
cost allocated to each purpose.)
7. Total Allocation (Items 4 + 6)
FLOOD
CONTROL
500
400
400
380
20
18
(3%)
398
POWER
1,500
1,000
1,000
600
400
360
(62%)
960
IRRI- |
CATION
350
600
350
150
200
180
(30%)
330
NAVI-
GATION
100
80
80
50
30
27
(5%)
77
TOTAL
2,45-0
2,080
2, 080
1,830
650
585
(100 %)
1,767
-------
SECONDARY AND REGIONAL BENEFITS
Senate Document 97 sets forth certain economic factors as
essential to the planning of all types of projects. The key
factor is an expectation of continued economic growth:
Formulation and evaluation [of water resource project
plans] shall normally be based on the expectation of an
expanding national economy in which increasing amounts of
goods and services are likely to be required to meet the
needs of a growing population, high levels of living,
international commitments, and continuing economic growth.
It is not within the scope of this study to discuss the
validity of assuming eternal economic expansion. Suffice it to
say that this assumption is currently accepted in virtually all
types of economic planning. On the other hand, there seems to be
a growing body of doubt about both the feasibility and the advisability
of infinite economic and population growth in a world of finite re-
sources. Certainly we can say that this question must receive careful
attention in future long-range planning for all areas of our national
life, including water resource planning.
The actual impact of .a water resources project upon economic expan-
sion is defined as the increased production of goods and services
within the region (regional benefits) as a result of the project.
The method of evaluating economic expansion effects takes into account
the following factors:
1. Effect of money spent in the region as a result of construction
df the project and subsequent operation and maintenance.
2. A multiplier effect of the above money as it is transferred
through the local economy-
3. The assumption of the inducement of large-scale industrial
growth, over and above the economic growth normally assumed.
(See section on flood control benefits.)
-------
Most of the problems encountered in measuring economic
expansion effects arise because many of these benefits seem to
be secondary. They often consist of income gains in the project
region that are offset by income losses in other regions. The
net gain to the national economy from these secondary benefits
may be zero. (The Bureau of Reclamation uses secondary benefits
most often while the Corps of Engineers usually limits their
use to Appalachia projects.)
Secondary benefits, as described in Senate Document 97, may
be used by federal agencies in the evaluation of project benefits,
but this does not mean that economists have come to any agreement
on how to measure secondary benefits or, indeed, that they
even exist at all. While Senate Document 97 sets up the
criteria of using two b/c ratios, one in which the "amount of
secondary benefits attributable to the project from a national
viewpoint shall be included" and a second b/c ratio in which
"other secondary benefits shall be included," (presumably
regional ones), there seems to be confusion both on how to measure
the magnitude of these benefits and how to use the two b/c
ratios. Economist Dr. Barry Field has stated, "Perhaps all
(economists) wbuld agree that the attempt to measure secondary
benefits greatly increases the risk of overstating project benefits.
The Corps has been criticized for apparently arbitrary
decisions on the magnitude of secondary regional benefits.
For instance, in the Logan Dam project in Ohio, 96% of the regional
expansion benefits are attributed to 2 industrial parks that
were predicted for future construction in the area. There did not
-------
seem to be any reason to assume that this development would
actually take place; in fact, it seemed very unlikely. However,
in Logan, as in other Corps projects, secondary benefits were
not used exclusively to justify the project. Secondary benefits
may be included but cannot, in themselves, be used to economically
justify a project.
-------
There are many other things to look for when analyzing regional
benefits. For instance, some secondary benefits have only a short-
term effect on the local economy, including the additional income
brought to an area during construction of a project and usually a
"local" dislocation of the economy. When construction is completed,
these benefits cease to exist. There is the possibility 'that these
benefits might be credited for a period-of time long after they have
actually ceased to exist.
In addition, there is a cost to the region where the project is
located that includes additional services that need to be supplied
during construction. For instance, police, fire protection, and
school facilities might need to be increased during the period the
construction workers and their families are in the area. Where Corps
projects are constructed in sparsely-inhabited areas, the effect of
increased wages and spending can significantly influence local infla-
tion and cause serious economic dislocation (Libby Dam,;Montana) .
The claim of regional secondary benefits ha's been criticized
for favoring the interests of groups or individuals over the general1
public interest. In a Columbia River Conservation League report on
the Upper Columbia River Navigation Project, it was stated, "Redis-
tributive effects of many programs are in favor of groups who are
powerful enough to use government programs for their own continued
existence." This is not a denial of secondary benefits; they are
quite real. Rather, it is a reminder that these regional benefits
will often be absorbed by a few powerful interests.
-------
Employment is another economic factor designated in Senate
Document 97 for planning consideration. Under conditions of less
than full employment on a national scale, appropriate standards
set by the President would be applied to the planning process.
In the case of "chronic and persistent unemployment in designated
areas. . . project benefits shall be considered as increased
by the value of the labor and other resources required for
project construction, and expected to be used in project operation,
project maintenance, and added area employment during the life of
the project, to the extent that such labor and other resources
would—in the absence of the project—be utilized or underutilized."
Regional unemployment is a particularly relevant issue
when a proposed Corps of Engineers or other water resources pro-
ject seems questionable in an environmental way. Naturally,
project proponents in a high-unemployment area can win the
support of the local people with the promise of federally-financed
jobs. Congressmen are particularly sensitive to this form of
persuasion, and rightly so. And yet, even the neediest of
areas will not benefit in the long sun from a project which
might bring ecological disaster to the region. Furthermore,
a careful search for job developments in ways other than civil
works projects should be made when a jobs-equal-justification
attitude prevails among the promoters of a Corps of Engineers or
water resources project. This might include the attraction of
new business or creation of new social service jobs. The
current unemployment problem in Washington State definitely
increased the problems of the conservation groups opposing the
Ben Franklin Dam and navigation projects and, in a now resolved
-------
economy-versus-environment struggle outside the Corps, the super-
sonic transport.
We would like to emphasize that should the new WRC guidelines
for water and land resource development be implemented in their
present form, regional benefits will have equal priority with
national economic development, environmental quality, and social
well being. These regional factors will be considered much
more thoroughly in future Corps projects than they are now under
Senate Document 97.
PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
All Federal water resource projects are currently evaluated
under the guidelines established in Senate Document 97. But
because of public and Congressional dissatisfaction with these
guidelines, the Council decided to review and revise the evaluation
practices and to try to create better ones. A Special Task Force
has studied the problem for the Council and has proposed
significant changes in its report, Standards for Planning 'Water
and Land Resources, completed in July, 1970. Although the details
of the proposed changes are still being worked out in the
various Federal agencies, many of the principles contained in
the Task Force report are already in use within the Corps of
Engineers. Formal adoption of the new Water Resource Guidelines
is tentatively expected in late 1971 or early 1972.
Basically, the changes in planning guidelines involve
a switch from a primarily single-objective to a multi-objective
approach. Under Senate Document 97, every effort is made to
-------
maximize the total net, national economic benefits of a project.
By contrast, the new guidelines will work toward a balancing
of strictly dollar-related benefits with less tangible benefits
such as environmental quality and social well-being. In explaining
the reasons for the changes to a gathering of the Rivers and
Harbors Congress in March, 1971, W. Don Maughan, Director of
the Water Resources Council, said:
Under present procedures plans are supposed to be formulated
under rather rigorous economic standards to achieve maximum
net economic benefits. Adjustments are supposed to be made
in this most /economically/ efficient plan to take
/_secondary/ account of other considerations such as the
environment, public health, or income distribution effects. .
This approach has not worked too well. Primary weight
has been given to monetary values. Not enough information
has been reported on alternative plans. Decision-makers
have not had information available to them on tradeoffs
between monetary and non-monetary values. The system
does not provide a basis for planning for non-efficiency
objectives. . .
Plans for the uses of the nation's water and land resources
will be directed to improve contributions to the multi-objec-
tives of national economic development, environmental
quality, social well-being, and regional development.
Planning for the use of water and land resources in terms
of these multiobjectives will aid in identifying alter-
native courses of action and will provide the type of
information needed to improve the public decision-making
process.
The Special Task Force has defined four broad objectives
(the multiobjectives) in planning the use of our water and land
resources :
A. To enhance national economic development by increasing
the value of the Nation's output of goods and services
and improving national economic efficiency-
B. To enhance the quality of the environment by the management,
conservation, preservation, creation, restoration, or
improvement of the quality of certain natural and cultural
resources and ecological systems.
-------
C. To enhance social well-being by the equitable distribution
of real income, employment, and population, with special
concern for the incidence of the consequences of a plan
on affected persons or groups; by contributing to the se-
curity of life and health; by providing educational, cultural,
and recreational opportunities; and by contributing to
national security -
D. To enhance regional development through increases in a region's
income; increases in employment; and improvements of its
economic base, environment, social well-being, and other
specified components of the regional objective.
Perhaps the single most important statement in the proposed
Principles follows the four objectives: "No one objective has any
greater inherent claim on water and land use than any other" (emphasis
added). In planning for the use of our water and land resources in
the future, all four objectives will be considered equal, as opposed
to the primacy of national economic development (NED) in past planning.
In certain instances, plans formulated expressly to emphasize one or
more of the other objectives may be given higher priority, over that
of NED. The Principles go on to say, perhaps somewhat idealistically,
that the multiobjectives will not be mutually exclusive with respect
to benefits and costs, since the final choice of a plan will be made
by considering the differences (in certain units) between alternative
plans as to their beneficial effect and adverse effects on all the
objectives. This is problematical, however, since there will doubt-
less be occasions when the four objectives will be mutually exclusive.
-------
Given a choice between two courses of action, one of which will work
to "enhance national economic development" but seriously harm the
"quality of the environment," and the other of which will do the
opposite, how does a. Corps planner decide which objective to pursue? Al-
though it is not in the water resource area, the Alaska pipeline
dilemma illustrates this problem dramatically.
Under the new guidelines, the terms "benefit" and "cost" have
meaning only as they relate to the four objectives. The Task Force
reports says:
Benefits are defined as positive (beneficial) contributions
toward the accomplishment of the multiobjectives. These benefits
may be of an economic, social, physical, or other nature. What-
ever their nature, benefits only have meaning when identified
as contributions over time and place toward achievement of ob-
jectives .
Costs are defined as the negative (adverse) effects on the
multiobjectives. Costs, like benefits, may be of an economic,
social, physical, or other nature and should be taken into
account at whatever time or place they may occur. . .
In other words, there are NED benefits and costs, environmental quality
benefits and costs, social well-being benefits and costs, and regional
development benefits and costs which will have equal priority in select-
ing the most viable alternative plan. These benefits and costs are
to be measured in terms that are meaningful to the respective
objectives, not necessarily monetary terms. Benefits and costs will
be expressed in (monetary and non-monetary) quantitative units whenever
possible. All those benefits and costs that cannot be quantified
will be described in meaningful qualitative terms. This means such
intangible benefits and costs as aesthetics will be given equal
consideration. This is a striking departure from Senate Document 97
-------
in which only those factors that could be measured in monetary terms
were given priority-
As a whole, the implementations of these guidelines would offer
encouragement for environmentally concerned citizens; however, a
more careful look at the proposal is warranted. Just as environmental
concerns will be considered equally with national economic development
(NED), so will regional development. In the past, it has been the
pressures of local groups such as navigation and power interests that
have brought civil works projects to a particular region under the
guise of - NED when, in fact, a given project had only regional benefits.
The new guidelines may give new impetus to these local concerns to
push for their pet projects. There is also a change concerning the
discount rate (interest rate) policy for the evaluation of projects.
In the past, there have been frequent changes in this discount rate
( 3 1/2 to 4 5/8 to 5 1/8) which tended to disrupt the
planning activities of many projects and helped kill some projects
just prior to authorization (see Case Study I). The new guidelines
propose to freeze the interest rate for relatively long periods of
time to avoid these disruptions. Economists and environmentalists
must hope the rate is set higher than 5 1/8% now used, if efficient
economic considerations are to be given to construction and environ-
mental costs over a period of time.
To improve public participation and to encourage more comprehen-
sive participation by Federal, regional, State, and local governments
and private interests in water resource planning, the Task Force has
recommended to the Water Resources Council that it ". . .support and
-------
encourage research and development of systems analysis and computer
programs to provide the support required in planning, so that all
participating interests may readily test out alternative plans with
their own assumptions and weights for various objectives" (emphasis
added). This is another area for significant input to water resource
planning by citizen groups, particularly if they can develop viable
alternative plans and have systems analysis expertise available to
them.
A credit to the foresight of the Special Task Force, is the inclusion
imthe new guidelines of risk and uncertainty parameters in project
planning. Risk is basically the chance of certain events occurring
even though their sequence and time of occurrence'cannot be determined.
If present data shows that a 100 year flood has occurred three times
in the last 20 years, then the risk factor of these floods is greater
for projects in the area flooded than if no 100 year floods had occurred
in the same area over the past 20 years. This is called "predictable
risk " and knowing this risk beforehand could result in planning a
project for the average conditions or planning it for the extreme
conditions (100 or 1000 year floods, for example). Uncertainty is
characterized by the lack of any previous data on which to base even
an estimate of the chance of a particular event occurring. This is
often the situation in water resource planning.
-------
We feel the proposed guidelines are a slight improvement
over Senate Document 97 and a short step toward realizing our
ecological problem. However, by July, 1971 the likelihood of
the new criteria being formally adopted as we have described
seemed doubtful. OMB had taken a strong stand against the
multi-objective approach. In a memorandum from OMB's assistant
director, Donald B. Rice, to W. Don Maughan, the Water Resources
Council's executive director, OMB stated, "The task force report
provides for the recommendation of plans to meet objectives of
regional development, environmental quality and quality of life
even when costs, on a national income basis, exceed the benefits.
We strongly disagree and believe no plan should be recommended
unless the addition to national income exceeds the costs."
The memo also disclaimed secondary benefits but said
secondary costs should be included. OMB also strongly indicated
that the "opportunity cost" principle should be the guide for
establishing the discount rate. Such a rate would probably
amount to between 10 and 15 per cent as compared to the 5%
per cent in the proposed guidelines. Mr. Rice also said the
Water Resources Council should give greater consideration
to cost-sharing with local interests and project beneficiaries
bearing a substantially larger share of project costs.
To water resource development proponents the OMB proposals
appear as sure death to most future projects. From an ecological
standpoint this would be a blessing. In the minds of most
conservationists, the fewer water resource projects the better.
It appears on the surface, that OMB's restrictions would do
-------
much to solve our ecological problem. If their suggestions
are implemented, they could significantly reduce the number of water
development projects which might force the development of more
ecologically sane water resource technology- Better still, stopping
all but a few projects, may make more people realize that we only
have so much usable water which can only support a limited
number of people with a stable rate of consumption. This
kind of action is attacking the causes of our natural disorder, not
the effects.
Relative to the kind of suggestions made by OMB, the WRC
proposed guidelines appear weak, ecologically. An increase
from 5 1/8 to 5% per cent in the interest rate and the failure
to increase the amount of cost-sharing are two examples of
this relative weakness. In view of the increasing reluctance
of local interests to provide assurances and cost-sharing,
OMB's idea of increased cost-sharing becomes more significant
to environmentalists.
In July 1971 an Executive office task force,including
OMB, CEQ and the Council of Economic Advisors, was meeting
with WRC and the Dept. of Interior and Dept. of Army to iron
out their differences, the results of which,were due to be
made public in the Federal Register.-in the late summer or fall
of 1971. Reliable sources involved in parts of the discussions
have said that the Executive Office was not pursuing the idea
of increasing cost-sharing. Cost-sharing will remain the same
in the future proposal. OMB also did not pursue their statement
-------
in the Rice-Maughan memorandum on including secondary costs
and excluding secondary benefits. Secondary benefits will
not be planned on in the next draft except when Congress authorizes
these kinds of benefits for a particular region, such as
Appalachia,
More significantly, the Executive Office task force has
been successful in getting the social well-being objective
dropped in the next draft of the guidelines. They have also
deleted the benefits from Unemployed Resources when computing
rational economic development benefits, although these Unemployed
Resources have been left in for computing regional benefits.
The primary issue of debate between OMB and WRC is the method of
determining the new interest rate. Both parties were very
tight-lipped about the subject and the only hint that could
be wedged out was the fact that OMB was pursuing the theory
of economist Jacob Stockfisch for computing the discount rate.
OMB officials have indicated that this method would give an
interest rate of about 10 per cent. In 3"uly 1971, the Executive
Office group and the water resources representatives were
at an impasse on the discount rate issue.
Following these meetings WRC will again draft the proposed
guidelines and publish them in the Federal Register. WRC
would not be obligated to include any of Executive Offices
suggestions and the final draft could be very nearly the same
as the previous draft. However, if WRC and the various agencies
which use WRC guidelines wish to have updated criteria they
would do well to incorporate the recommendations of the Executive
-------
Office, since the President has to sign the new guidelines into
law, if they are in agreement with his budgetary policy -
The purpose of these high level meetings was to bring the WRC
ideas and the policies of the President into agreement so that
new guidelines could be put into use by 1972.
After the revised proposal is published in the Federal
Register there will be a period of 90 days for comment by
the public and government agencies and Congress. WRC has also
decided to hold public hearings on the new guidelines after they
become public information. This would be an excellent opportunity
for citizens and groups to express their views on the ecological
and economic aspects of future water resources development.
We would hope the public supports a 10 to 15 per cent interest, a
significant increase in CftsT -sharing by local interests and
project beneficiaries and equal consideration of environmental
factors with economic factors.
Concerned citizens can write to the Water Resources Council,
Suite 900, 1025 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, B.C. 20005,
for copies of the proposals and for information about hearings.
-------
SUGGESTED READING
Chapter 5
Barnett, Harold J., and Chandler Morse. Scarcity and Growth: The
Economics of Natural Resource Availability. Johns Hopkins Press,
1963.
Davis, Robert K. The Range of Choice in Water Management. Johns
Hopkins Press. Baltimore, 1968.
Haveman, Robert H. Water Resources Investment and the Public Interest.
Vanderbilt University Press. 1965.
James, L.D., and Lee. Economics of Water Resource Planning. McGraw
Hill. 1971.
Kneese, Allan and Stephen C. Smith. Water Research. Johns Hopkins
Press. Baltimore. 1966.
Krutilla, John V. and Otto Eckstein. Multiple Purpose River Development.
Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. 1958.
Landsberg, Hans H. Natural Resources for U.S. Growth: A Look Ahead
to the Year 2000. Johns Hopkins Press, 1964; third printing. 1967.
Maass, Arthur. Design in Water Resources Systems. Harvard University
Press. 1966.
Water Resources Council. Policies, Standards and Procedures in
the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use and
Development of Water and Related Land Resources. Senate
Document No. 97. May 29, 1962.
-------
CHAPTER VI
Some Thoughts on Costs and Benefits
Most civil works projects contracted by the Army Corps
of Engineers are designed to serve two or more purposes and are
thus known as "multi-purpose projects." As we have seen in the
last chapter, the costs and benefits of such projects are divided
among the various purposes to be served, with costs allocated
among the various governmental levels and local interests.
Citizens groups seeking to understand and influence
the economic justification for Army Corps projects will need an
introduction to the criteria for assessing typical costs and
benefits of some of the purposes of a multi-purpose project--
flood control, navigation, water quality and supply, and recre-
ation. We hope to provide that introduction in Chapter Six
and to make the economic facts more concrete by reference to
several particular projects.
We wish to emphasize once more the desirability of obtaining
a professional economist to do an economic evaluation of a project
for the citizens' group. If there is a college or university near-
by, the students, staff, and faculty can be of great help. A
class or a student group may be willing to take on an economic
study as a group project, or a graduate student might use such
a study as a dissertation. The Corps has economists working in
its behalf; in order to do an effective independent analysis, the
citizens' group should use economists of equally high calibre.
-------
WHICH COSTS MORE - FLOODS OR FLOOD CONTROL?
The Corps has had primary Federal responsibility for flood
control since the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936. Since
that year, the Corps has completed some 650 flood control projects
costing about six billion dollars. In addition, projects with an
estimated cost of 3.5 billion dollars were under construction as of
1968, with many other projects authorized,but not yet started.
There are many different ways of reducing damage caused by
floods, through both structural and non-structural methods. The
three basic structural flood control methods used by the Corps
(often in combination) are 1) confining water within the floodplain
with levees; 2) enlarging channel capacity with levees, dredging
or channel straightening; and 3) storage reservoirs. Non-structural
methods (which depend on others besides the Corps) include flood
plain zoning and construction of buildings so as to minimize flood
damage (building on stilts, garages on ground floor, etc.). Although
the Corps supports such actions as flood plain zoning by local
planning bodies, its own projects are heavily oriented toward struc-
tural remedies and therefore act as disincentives for local, non-
structural flood control. It is clear that flood control has been,
and will continue to be, a very important job of the Army Corps
of Engineers.
Primary benefits from flood control are measured as the
reduction in damage from floods expected to occur after project
construction, compared to damages likely to occur without the
-------
protection afforded by the project. The Corps often seems
to overestimate the damages from floods prior to project con-
struction, thereby assigning artificially high benefits to the
project. For example, as was seen in the discussion of the Oakley
Dam in Illinois, figures for flood damage to agricultural lands
might be included even though some of those lands are in the
federal idle-acres program, in which farmers are paid not to
grow crops. How does one measure the value of unused farmland?
Does flooding really damage it? Does preventing floods really
enhance its value to the nation as it does to the owner?
Also, there are examples of an apparently arbitrary increase
in estimates for flood damage reduction from a project to offset
rising costs and thus keep the benefit-cost ratio above unity.
For instance, in the proposed Logan Dam project in Ohio, estimates
in the Corps final feasibility report were higher than those in
the preliminary report, even though the two estimates were based
on the same data. Increases like these should be questioned by
the public. Recently, the Secretary of the Army recommended a
complete restudy of the environment and economic aspects of the
Logan Dam project.
A basic assumption behind the method of evaluating flood
control benefits is outlined in Senate Document 97, which states
that "formulation and evaulation shall normally be based on the
expectation of an expanding national economy" (Section V A2). So
primary benefits, that is benefits in flood damage reduction, are
assumed to increase annually. Also, the Document states that there
may be an increase in the net return from higher use of property
-------
made possible as a result of lowering the flood hazard. As a
result, project benefits often predict a sharp increase in
flood plain usage, stemming from assumed high rate of future
development, which results in turn from the increased safety
of the flood plain provided by the project.
On the other hand, while benefits from increased development
are counted, induced community costs resulting from this develop-
ment are sometimes overlooked. According to Senate Document 97
(Section V F4) induced costs include estimated net increases
in the cost of government services directly resulting from the
project, such as schools and water treatment plants, and net
adverse effects on the economy, such as increased transportation
costs. One example of this can be seen in the proposed Pescadero
Dam project is San Mateo County, California. In this case, an
$8,000 per acre increase in land values on the flood plain was
claimed as a flood-control benefit. But the extra costs that the
county residents must pay to the local government in taxes and
services on this land are not included. However,- the Corps, as
a matter of policy, usually does try to include damages in project
planning.
The Corps and its critics alike have noted with some irony
that the nation's flood damage potential is actually increasing
despite—and sometimes because of--the Corps' flood control projects.
This paradox is the result of development on the flood plain which
may not have been undertaken without flood protection. As land
values and building construction take an upward jump, so do the
damage costs when an unusually severe flood surpasses the holding
capacity of the project. Sometimes, even without a flood control
-------
project, an unwise development policy has been followed on the
flood plain despite the ever-present danger of flooding. In those
cases, after pleas from local people who have suffered flood damage,
the Federal government must come in and bear the cost of a flood
control project which would not have been necessary if the flood
plain had been left undeveloped.
The answer to the dilemma, clearly, is careful planning and man-
agement of the flood plain and cost sharing by the Federal, state
and local governments. Planning and zoning are a local responsi-
bility, although the Corps can do much to encourage preservation
of open space on the flood plain. One positive aspect of the
Oakley Dam proposal in Illinois is the Corps' plan for a 4,000-acre
recreational "greenbelt" area on the flood plain, precluding
private development. Formerly, the Corps had proposed to channel
the 100 miles of river below the dam. Citizens can take an active
role in flood plain management by seeking office on the local
planning and zoning board and working hard for responsible flood
plain zoning.
On the other side of the coin, the Corps and project proponents
must stop using the projected development of the flood plain as a
justification for its flood control projects. By counting among
the project's benefits the economic boost of increased land values
or commercial, industrial, and residential development on the
flood plain, the Corps may boost the b/c ratio over the 1:1 mark,
but may ignore the potential costs of increased flood damage.
Clearly, it cannot work both ways. The Corps may find that the
law of supply and demand will actually turn an open space plan
into a greater benefit than a development plan, since the supply
-------
of open space is dwindling rapidly. 'This type of justification
is more the fault of Senate Document .97 than the Corps of Engineers.
However- the Corps as primary user of S. D. 97 could do the most
to implement a change if it exerted pressure on Congress to con-
sider a change.
Measuring flood contro.l benefits in agricultural areas . a,lso
poses problems. For example, should the benefits be measured, in
terms of the potential increase in net incomde to the farmer
through increased agricultural protection? A lack of demand for
agricultural,products may lead to participation in the federal
idle-acreas programs or to federal price supports for the products.
In that case, the increased acreage will actually contain new
costs for the government, and few benefits. From an ecological
standpoint, the fertility of the land may actually be reduced
because ,of the interruption of..the natural pattern of flooding on
the land. These economic and ecological problems were mentioned
by the members of the Committee on Allerton Park in their answer
to the Corps' claims of flood control benefits of the farmland
near the proposed Oakley Dam.
Even when a flood control-project does reap clear benefits
on agricultural lands, the benefits usually, go directly to the
farmers. The Flood Control. Act of 1936 justifies "...benefits to
whomsoever they may accrue." However, if these benefits are- affected
by costs to farmers elsewhere, then there may not be any national
economic benefits. The real effect may be zero economic benefits.
-------
NAVIGATION: STEERING A STRAIGHT COURSE
FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS
The Corps of Engineers has been working on navigation
projects since 1824, when Congressional authorization made navigation
improvement the first civil activity of the Army Corps. Since
then, the Corps has developed navigation projects on over 22,000
miles of waterways in the United States.
The changing technology of water transportation has
kept the Corps busy with navigation projects. As new channels
and canals are completed, they risk becoming quickly obsolete
because of the development of larger barges with a deeper draft.
Some navigation projects which were hailed as the last word in
water transportation when they were completed some years ago are
now liquid white elephants. Upon completion of the first leg of
the now cancelled Cross-Florida Barge Canal in 1970, a barge was
ceremoniously escorted into the waterway on the 4th of July.
The District Engineer hailed the occasion as a "Foreshadowing
of things to come"--words he doubtless regretted when the barge
ran aground and resisted all attempts to move her for three days'.
As techniques of barge-building continue to change, the Federal
government will have to decide whether it wishes to continue the
race by expending vast new sums to keep apace in navigation im-
provements, at the expense of a failing railroad system, and
grossly underfunded rapid transit programs.
-------
The Corps is usually able to show that its navigation
projects will make water transportation more economical;. But too
often, full consideration of alternatives seems to be neglected.
Project opponents often criticize the Corps for considering only
a narrow range of possibilities and citizens' groups have presented
evidence in favor of ground transportation, by truck or railroad,
instead of river navigation. Indeed, the Corps is not a free agent
in this matter, since its authorization does not permit it to
implement ground transportation. This lack of authority is a
serious shortcoming of the decision-making processes for public
work projects.
Interestingly enough, one of the early and persistent opponents
of the now-defunct Cross-Florida Barge Canal was the Association
of American Railroads. While admittedly an organization with a
vested interest, the Association did point up the lack of consideration
given to ground transportation by the Corps and the Congress in
planning the Canal. Furthermore, the railroad group pointed out
that the primary beneficiaries of such projects are the waterway
transportation interests, notably the barge companies. This can be
inequitable. The Corps provides the barge line with a free roadbed,
while railroads must construct their own facilities and trucks must
pay very insufficient taxes to support highways. Only barges get a
relatively free ride. If the benefits are real, barge owners
should be willing to pay for them, perhaps through some sort of toll
arrangement.
-------
Benefits to the barge companies may also be costs for the
larger public, since the people usually find the waterway less
attractive or accessible for their own use after improvements
for barge transportation have been made. An independent organization
making an economic analysis of navigation projects must ask who will
receive the benefits. When the recipients of supposed "national"
benefits are primarily a specialized group, the Corps should be
asked to reflect that fact in its b/c ratio by giving the bene-
fits a reduced value since the public isn't really the benefi-
ciary or by showing a greater cost to the general public for
supporting private interprise.
As we have seen in our earlier discussion of regional benefits,
one region's benefit may be non-existent. Regional benefits include
both goods and services which result directly from the project and
"external economies", the transfer of resources (both manpower and
materials) from one area to another. It is the latter type of
benefit which often nets a large zero on a national scale, but that
may be justified in the Appalachia Region.
The values of projected regional benefits are often closely
tied to the size of projected population growth for the area; a high
population increase will, of course, greatly increase the projected
benefits. To some extent, a high population projection may be self-
fulfilling since it will encourage the construction of projects
which will, in turn, foster the anticipated growth. Again, there are
-------
hidden costs. The price of supporting our increasing population
is not computed in a projection of regional benefits. To include
costs of this type, a much more comprehensive type of planning
would have to be utilized, involving considerable inter-agency
cooperation. It is not, after all, in the Corps' province
to provide schools, police and fire protection, transportation and
other services for a growing population. Yet the net effect of
ignoring such costs is an artificial inflation of regional benefits.
-------
WATER QUALITY CONTROL: TREATMENT, NOT DILUTION
One of the Corps' methods of improving water quality
through its public works projects is the procedure known as
"low flow augmentation". In more graphic terms, the method is
sometimes called "sewage dilution". It is essentially the process
of storing water in a reservoir and then releasing it at a pre-
scribed rate to flush the pollutants through the river downstream.
Since the passage of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1961, low flow augmentation has been a legitimate purpose of
multi-purpose dams and reservoirs constructed by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
The problem with low flow agumentation is that is is not
efficient in maintaining or increasing water quality. Environ-
mentally, it is a product of the same thinking which assumes
that the best way to avoid floods is to get the water downstream
as fast as possible. Low flow augmentation does not get rid of
the pollutants; it merely dilutes them. Untreated pollutants
eventually move downstream to become the problem of other cities
and eventually to become a problem for the world, as marine pol-
lution. This method may require a great deal of water and is
not effective in handling many pollutants, such as acid mine
drainage heavy metals and pesticides. A virtue of low flow
augmentation is that it may serve to maintain sufficient water
flow in a river, to retard the development of oxygen-depleting
algae and maintain permissable levels of dissolved oxygen and
water temperature during the warmer months. In those cases, some
augmentation is better than no augmentation.
-------
The benefits of low flow augmentation as part of a multi-
purpose dam are sometimes overstated (Oakley Dam). Benefits are
determined by using the alternative cost method—that is, the cost
of including low flow augmentation in a multi-purpose project is
compared to the least cost alternative means of achieving the
same results. Of course, there is not absolute assurance that
such an alternative would be undertaken in the absence of the
multi-purpose project.
The Corps sometimes considers a single-purpose dam as the most
likely alternative to the multi-purpose dam. This is most unrealis-
tic, since it is unlikely that a dam designed just to provide
sewage dilution would ever be built. The cost would be prohibitive.
But when compared with the single-purpose dam, the inclusion of low
flow augmentation in a multi-purpose dam appears to be very econom-
ical. Clearly, the alternative methods considered should be broad-
ened to include tertiary sewage treatment plants, which are univer-
sally recognized as a far more effective pollution abatement device.
A further problem, often unrecognized, lies in the possibility
that a multi-purpose dam may create water quality problems of its
own. When a reservoir is used for both recreation and flow aug-
mentation, the release of a large amount of water for flow augmen-
tation will almot certainly result in a substantial drawdown of
the reservoir, exposing mudflats and speeding up the eutrophica-
tion (enrichment) process there. A reservoir in this condition
is not very appealing to boating or swimming enthusiasts. And if
the water quality aspects have an undesirable effect on the
-------
recreational aspects, the reverse is also true. Heavy use of
the reservoir for swimming and boating can cause a rise in the
bacterial level and oil residues in the water. This effect
needs to be recognized as a reduction in both water quality and
recreation benefits.
RECREATION
As the primary federal water resource development agency,
the Corps plays a major role in providing outdoor recreation. in
fact, if one uses numbers of visitors as the criterion, the Corps
runs the largest recreation program in the Federal government. The
American public is demanding and using more and more recreational
areas as the population grows and leisure time increases. The
Corps, having completed flood control and navigational projects on
most of the nation's major rivers, is turning more and more to the
development of recreational facilities. In its 1968 Annual Report,
the Corps stated that "recreation has become such an extensive use
of water resource projects that it can be considered a significant
factor in the economic justification for the construction of
multiple-purpose reservoirs."
The first step in measuring recreational benefits of a
proposed multi-purpose project is to determine present and future
demand for recreation facilities. This is determined by measuring
the participation rate for the current population of the region
-------
at existing recreational facilities and then extrapolating these
rates into the future by multiplying expected future population
by the current participation rate. The product obtained is the
estimated future demand. This method, employed by the Corps, the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the Interior Department, and other
public agencies, has been seriously criticized because the figure
obtained is actually the result of an interaction between present
demand and supply, rather than an accurate measure of future
demand. That is, the current participation rate depends as much
on present recreation opportunities, or supplies, as it does on
present demand. Using the currently-accepted procedure, one may
come to the conclusion that an area with adequate recreational
opportunities should have more facilities constructed, since the
participation rate in this area is likely to be relatively high.
In the plans for Ohio's Logan Dam and Reservoir, for example,
recreation accounted for 76% of the project's benefits and over
half of the allocated construction costs. This seems an extraordinary
portion, considering the fact that Logan was conceived as a flood
control project and the fact that 19 state parks, one national
forest, and 21 other recreation facilities already exist within a
100-mile radius of the proposed dam site. More importantly, the
Water Project Recreation Act(PL 89-72) does not allow the costs
allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife to exceed 50 percent
of the total project cost.
Furthermore, the Corps' proposals for recreational development
-------
at Logan are, to some extent, a substitution of one kind of
recreation for another kind already in existence, rather than the
creation of recreational opportunities where none exist. The
Clear Creek area, where the reservoir would be, currently offers
abundant fishing and pleasurable walking and riding through a
gorge which is unique in flat Ohio and which would be lost to
flooding from the dam. Instead, the Corps and the state would pro-
vide a high-density, highly-developed recreation area, as seen
in the Corps' own description:
The development plan for Clear Creek State Park con-
stitutes a complete recreational complex. Facilities
would include a lodge and dining hall, vacation cabins,
swimming beaches, boat launching ramps and docking
areas, and provisions for sightseeing, picnicking,
and tent and trailer camping. Upstream lands will
be managed for wildlife, and fishing access areas
will be provided downstream.
The Clear Creek Gorge, like Allerton Park, is used exten-
sively for scientific research by Ohio University. Scientists,
as well as the Bureau of Sport Fisheries of the Interior Department,
have expressed their unhappiness over the prospect of losing such
a unique area. The project has not yet been authorized by Congress,
and the Corps seems to have put the plan in mothballs temporarily.
Citizens in Ohio, including the Ohio Environmental Council and Mr.
W.E. Benua (who owns land in the Clear Creek area and who hired a
Washington law firm and Dr. Barry Field to do a careful legal
and economic analysis of the project), are keeping a close watch
on the status of the Logan Dam and Reservoir proposal.
-------
Recreational participation levels, both current and pro-
jected, are measured in terms of "user days" and "value per user
day". These measures are used by all Federal agencies, not just
the Corps of Engineers. When the Corps describes a certain faci-
lity as providing 30,000 user days per month, ideally this means
that an average of 1,000 people use the facility each day of the
month. Realistically, of course, some days see heavier use than
others. In planning new facilities, the Interior Department's
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation currently uses the assumption that
the average recreational facility will have three capacity days
per week during the recreation season. According to Dr. Field's
report the Corps, in making future projections, has assumed a
change in work patterns leading to the realization of five cap-
acity days by the year 2000 and capacity level every day by 2040.
While current trends do seem to be leading to a four-day work
week in some segments of the economy, the Corps' prediction of
full-time capacity of recreational facilities does seem far-fetched.
Naturally, such a projection has the effect of increasing future
recreational benefits.
The concept of "value per user day" may be equally arbi-
trary. It is defined as the price a person would be willing to
pay for a typical day at the recreation facility, whether or not
he does, in fact, pay. Benefits having no standard market price
are measured according to the "willingness to pay" idea. Federal
guidelines for all agencies have been established for the permissable
range of values per day for recreational facilities:
-------
$.50 to $1.50/day for generalized recreation
(Swimming, boating, hiking)
$1.50 to $6.00/day for specialized, low-density recreation
(Camping facilities, nature trails)
Although the value-per-user-day figure is a quantitative
one, it should reflect qualitative factors; a low-density camping
area provides higher-quality recreation than a high-density, roped-
in swimming area. Dr. Field has criticized the Corps for assigning
the proposed recreational facilities at Logan Reservoir a value of
$1.50 per user day despite the fact that they will provide only
generalized recreation of a high-density nature.
As we pointed out in our discussion of water quality, recrea-
tional benefits claimed in the planning stages of a multi-purpose
project are sometimes not realized to the extent planned. A reser-
voir which suffers from turbidity and silting, from driftwood,
and from mud-exposing drawdowns cannot provide the recreation
anticipated in Corps planning. There are a number of cases in
which planned recreational benefits turned out to be unplanned
public health hazards. In Carlyle Reservoir,- Illinois, no-swimming
signs have been posted because of improper sanitation facilities
and a high-density use which increased the chance of cross-con-
tamination by swimmers. High-density recreation areas, in par-
ticular, are subject to increasing numbers of fatal boating acci-
dents and accidental drownings. In fact, on some reservoirs,
deaths as a result of drowning far exceed those caused by floods
before the dam (Carlyle Reservoir). These negative aspects of
some reservoirs are, fortunately a minority. On many Corps
-------
reservoirs recreation use actually far exceeds that initially
planned for the project with a resultant increase in the economy
of the project area.
To keep a proper perspective we must realize that many Corps
reservoir projects now provide water-oriented recreation where
none existed previously—especially in the East, Midwest and cen-
tral California. From its position, the Corps must also keep a
proper perspective—all of mankind's leisure time needs will not
be satiated by reservoirs alone—he needs pristine rivers and
streams more than he needs man-made lakes.
Unlike flood-control costs which are paid by the Federal
government, recreational costs are divided among state, local, and
federal pocketbooks. State and local interests must assume 50%
of the cost of recreational facilities in a multi-purpose federal
water project. The Federal Water Project Act of 1965 (PL 89-72)
provides that recreation may be a purpose for a federal water
project only if non-federal interests agree to share equally the
separable costs of facilities. The joint costs may be assigned to
the Federal government. Cost-sharing arrangements depend on the
specific authorizing legislation, as well as the applicability of
general legislation.
WATER SUPPLY: WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE. . .
Since the passage of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (PL 85-800}
storage for water supply has been recognized as a purpose of federal
multiple-purpose reservoirs. Financing of municipal and industrial
-------
water supply are still considered to be the primary responsibility
of state and local interests. Federal costs allocated for water
supply of a federal multiple-purpose project may not exceed 30%
of the total project construction costs, and these costs are
reimbursable by the local water users over a 50-year period
at federal interest rates.
There are several assumptions that are behind the evaluation
of water supply costs and benefits. One of the most important
is the need, both present and future, .for a supply of municipal
and industrial water. The present need can be evaluated, but
future need projections present problems, just as future recreation
projections do. Future water supply demand is closely related
to population growth, future per capita and industrial use, and
future water treatment technology -
Population projections, even when based on the soundest
I
statistical data, are still uncertain predictions. This is especially
true within limited geographical areas, where future population
will depend not just on the birth rate, but also on the economic
well-being of local industry and commerce and the availability of
housing. The possibility of gross inaccuracy is increased by the
use of extremely long-range planning. In the case of a water resource
project with a planning life of one hundred years, it is exceedingly
difficult to provide dependable population data for the future.
What sage in the early 1870 's would have had the foresight to
predict our present population level or the urban and suburban
migrations which have -had such a profound effect on our national life?
-------
It is also difficult to predict per capita use of'water.
The country has undergone a marked increase in usage both in
industry (for cooling and electric power) and in residential use
(for purposes as diverse as daily baths, lawn sprinkling, electric
dishwashers and washing machines, and toilet flushings). It seems
likely that the increase in industrial and per capita water usage
could be leveled off in the future by increases in cost, but again,
it is difficult to arrive at accurate predictions of the future
industrial and population growth.
Water treatment technology is another important variable in
determining water supply benefits for Corps of Engineers projects.
By law, the Corps cannot implement alternatives which might, in
fact, prove to be more feasible than impounding water in a reservoir.
Improvements in technology are quite likely in the areas of water
softening (which would open up numerous underground supplies for
future use), desalinization of sea water, and treatment of water
for recycling. These procedures are still at an embryonic stage,
but the Corps needs to give them due consideration as possible al-
ternatives to inclusion of water supply as part of a multi-purpose
dam, and seek the authorization to consider these vastly superior
alternative methods.
Of course, there are costs involved in drawing a water supply
from a nearby impoundment. In addition to water treatment, which
can scarcely be avoided these days, the transportation costs are
usually taken into account. if these costs are overlooked or
-------
underestimated the benefits attributed to the water supply portion
of a project will be inflated. The costs would have to be met
by local .taxpayers who may not have been aware of them when they
originally supported the project.
-------
SUGGESTED READING
Chapter VI
Bain, Joe S., Richard E. Caves, and Julius Margolis. Northern
California's Water Industry; The Comparative Efficiency
of Public Enterprise in Developing a Scarce Natural
Resource. Johns Hopkins Press, 1967.
Cleary, Edward J. The ORSANCO Story; Water Quality Management in
the Ohio Valley under an Interstate Compact. Johns
Hopkins Press, 1967-
Crutchfield, James A., and Giulio Pontecorvo. The Pacific Salmon
Fisheries; A Study of Irrational Conservation. Johns
Hopkins Press, 1969.
Goldstein, Jon H. Competition for Wetlands in the Midwest: An
Economic Analysis. Resources for the Future. Spring, 1971.
Herfiridahl, Orris C. and Allen V. Kneese. Quality of the Environment:
An Economic Approach to Some Problems in Using Land,
Water, and Air. Resources for the Future. 1969.
Howe, Charles W. , etal. Inland Waterway Transportation: Studies
in Public and Private Management and Investment Decisions.
Resources for the Future. 1969.
H'owe, Charles W. , and K. William Easter. Interbasin Transfers of
Water; Economic Issues and Impacts. Johns Hopkins Press,
Spring, 1971.
Kneese, Allen and Blair T. Bower. Managing Water Quality: Economics,
Technology and Institutions. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
1968.
Krutilla, John V. An Economic Approach to Coping with Flood Damage.
Water Resources Research. Vol. 2, Second Quarter, 1966.
Krutilla, John V. The Columbia River Treaty: The Economics of an
International River Basin Development. Johns Hopkins Press,
1967.
Leopold, Luna B. and Thomas Maddock. The Flood Control Controversy:
Big Dams, Little Dams and Land Management. Ronald Press
Co., New York. 1954.
-------
APPENDIX CONTENTS
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. EP 1165-2-1.Water Resources Policies
and Authorities.
This pamphlet summarizes the major water resources
development programs authorized by Congress for
accomplishment by the Corps of Engineers.
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. EP 1120-2-55. Public Meetings in
Planning.
This circular explains the policy, responsibility and
guidance for holding formally organized and
announced public meetings of the Corps.
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. EP 1105-2-507. Preparation and
Coordination of Environmental Statements.
This circular provides guidance for the Corps of Engineers
in the preparation and coordination of their
environmental statements as required by Section 102 (2) (C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190)
Dept. of the Army, O.C.E. The Army Corps of Engineers and
Environmental Conservation. 9 Questions.
This pamphlet briefly explains how the public
may better participate in project planning, how
the Corps views our environment and what they are
trying to do to resolve controversy. Essentially,
this is the Corps' view of themselves.
Public Law 91-190. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The act is included in whold for citizens to use as
they see fit.
Addresses of the Division and District Offices and the Officer
in Charge.
The officer-in-charge usually changes in the district
every 2-4 years and with this change may also come a
different approach by a Division or District to
environmental problems and public participation. Citizens
should be familiar with the ecological awareness of
ttie District and Division officers-in-charge.
Environmental Advisory Board of the Chief of Engineers: Names
and Addresses.
If a citizen group can establish an effective liaison
-------
with one or more of the board members, they can increase
their chances of significant input to project planning.
The Advisory Board reviews all controversial Corps
projects.
Pertinent Addresses for Citizens Involved with Water Resources
Projects.
-------
DE]?;MT,NT OF TIIE AKiiY EP 1165-2-1
Office of the. Chief of r.ugino.cru
EKGCiv-RL Washington, D. C. 20315
Pamphlet
RO. 1165-2-1 28 October 1966
WATER RESOURCES POLICIES AKD AUTHORITIES
Water Resources Development Programs
of the Corps of Engineers
•-« Z^lE2£T:..i1.1l£_§£2}l0-'' This pamphlet summarizes the laws and policies
governing t:be m?jor water resources development programs of the Corps of
Engineers, It way be used by Division end District Engineers for public
distribution to explain the. nature and extent of Federal participation by
the Corps and required non-Federal cooperation (Ctate, regional and local)
in water resources development.
'-• liiit^iE£.Jil>_2lll^ a- Tne Civil
Works program has developed through a long series of River and Harbor and
Flood Control Acts, which have gradually established the Corps of Engineers
responsibility in water resources development. The program includes multi--
project programs and single and multiple-purpose projects for the immediate
and Ions-range development of the Nation's water and related land resources.
Specific functions include commercial and recreational navigation, flood
control^ m:ijor drainage, hydroelectric power, water supply, water quality
control, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife cnh-'incement and conservation,
beach erosion control, and hurricane flood protection.
b. Water resource programs and projects originate in comprehensive
river basin studies and specific survey investigations which arc made in
response to Congressional authorizations (Part A, below)-. Favorable survey
reports are published as Senate or House Documents. Recommended projects
may subsequently be authorized by Congress as Federal projects in Omnibus
River and Harbor and Flood Control Acts. Further Congressional action is
required for the appropriation of funds for engineering, design, construction,
and operation and maintenance. Assurance of non-Federal cooperation of
varying degrees is required prior to initiation of Federal construction.
Projects for river basin development, flood control, navigation, and.beach
aid shore protection on the coasts and Great Lakes (Fart B) require specific
Congressional authorization before construction. Within monetary limits,
certain small projects for these purposes can be undertaken without specific
Congre.crJ.onnl authorization (Part C). In addition, Congress has provided.
broad general authorities to include water supply, water quality control,
and recreational development in authorized and completed projects. The
Corps of Engineers also performs certain disaster relief and emergency
operations under special authorities (Part D).
This pamphlet rescinds. EP 1165-2-1, 25 July 1966
-------
EP ]365-2-1
26 Get 66
A* GElID^d^-^
3° ^J:}^-^11 rj-lne Corps of Engineers is engaged In comprehensive stucliep
with other Federal and non-Federal agencies to develop long-range piano for
the development of the Nation's river basins. Two types of comprehensive
studies are currently under way: framework (Type I) and detailed (Type II).
The framework studies will project long-range needs for water and related
land resources, and will develop general plans and long-range programs for
the major basins or regions. The detailed comprehensive studies of various
river basins throughout the Nation will develop comprehensive basin plans
and will recommend specific projects for authorization. The current program
of comprehensive studies is scheduled for completion in 1972. Thereafter,
continuing studies will up-date and revise the framework plans as changing
conditions and expectations of the National economy warrant. Comprehensive
river basin studies stem from specific Congressional authorizations and the
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-80).
4. Survey Investigations, Specific projects and systems of projects
for the. optimum development of water and related resources are Investigated
for engineering and economic feasibility in survey studies by the Corps,
These studies, authorized usually by resolution of the Public 5\7orks Com"
mittees of the United States Senate or House of Representatives, culminate
in recommendations to Congress on the desirability of authorizing Federal
projects, and on the conditions of non-Federal cooperation considered war-
ranted,. The detailed steps of survey investigation, interage.ncy coordination,
and project authorization are outlined in EP 1120-2-1.
$• F;l££lcLJ>^a?-n In f o rm a t ion S t u d i e s « Section 206 of the Flood Control
Act of I960 (P0L. 86-645), as amended, authorized the Secretary of the Army
through the Chief of Engineers to compile and disseminate information on
flood hazards. The reports contain maps showing areas subject to flooding
and depths that can be expected. Technical advice and guidance on planning
the use of the flood plains and on reducing flood damages are also available.
The studies are made at the request of State and other governmental agencies.
Such studies are made largely at Federal expense within the limits of
appropriated funds. Local Interests are encouraged to provide mapping,
aerial photography, stream flow records, and similar relevant assistance
and information,
B. GENERAL WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS
6. Navigation^ Corps of Engineers responsibility for the improvement
of rivers and harbors for navigation was initiated by Congress in 1824.
Subsequently authorized projects developed the present policy of requiring
local interests tc provide the necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-
way for project construction and for spoil disposal where needed^ relocate
or alter utilities, provide and maintain public terminals and berthing
areas, and hold and save the United States free from damages due to the
construction works. Special contributions may be required for single-user
-------
EP 1165-2-1
28 Oct 66
projects and where land enhancement results from spoil disposal. Railroad
and highway bridge alterations are financed cooperatively under Public
Law 647, 76th Congress (Truman-Hobbs Act), as amended, where they unreason-
ably obstruct navigation. Recreational harbors may be recommended where
feasible, and a local cash contribution of 50 percent of the first cost?
of the general navigation facilities allocated to recreational boating
is required in addition to other cited requirements of cooperation.
Maintenance of general navigation features is at Federal expense.
7- Flood Control. The Federal interest in nationwide flood control
was established by the Flood Control. Act of 22 June 1936. That Act states
that the Federal Government should participate with non-Federal interests
in flood control "if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in
excess of the estimated costs, and if the lives and. social security of
the people are otherwise adversely affected." The 1936 and subsequent
Acts established the basis for the present policy on local cooperation
follov/ed by the Corps of Engineers. For proposed local protection
projects} non-Federal interests are generally required to give assurances
that they will provide lands, easements, and rights-of-vay (including
relocations and alterations of highways, highway bridges, and utilities);:
hold and save the United States free from damages due. to the construction
works; and operate and maintain the projects after construction. These
three requirements are known as the "a-b-c" requirements of local cooper-
ation. Flood control reservoirs, however, are generally exempt from such
requirements except in special cases where the benefits are confined to
a single locality and the project is in lieu of local protection works.
Special local cooperation, usually as a cash contribution, may be recom-
mended for flood control projects that produce "windfall." benefits to a
few beneficiaries, or that involve land drainage benefits.
8« Ma.^or Drainage. The Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L, 534, 78th
Congress) defined~flood control to include "major drainage." Federal
major drainage improvements are defined to mean major outlet channels
serving local land drainage systems. Administrative policy provides
for equal sharing of the first costs of the major outlets, including
lands, between Federal and non-Federal interests, with the latter to
operate and maintain the project after construction, and to provide all
off-project drainage improvements.
9. Hydroelectric Power. Power development may be recommended in
reservoir"~pro'Jects' if economically justified. Where power is not found
immediately feasible, penstocks in dams may be included for future power
development upon the recommendation of the Federal Power Commission. In
multiple-purpose projects, the costs allocated to power are the basis
for establishing rates by the Federal marketing agencies.
-------
irr- 1165-2-1
2C Oct 66
10* liJL^L.^i'.^Pj.V' Municipal ;.nd industrial water supply is considered
the priuiary rci.^ncifoi.lil.y of the r.-^iclpa lit.icr or other non-Federal
entities, Hoover, stereo capacity for \v.t.rr supply :v..'ry be raconcr.omdcd in
proposed or authorised rrf,ervcir,", ;.uv:.'i.!.'-ii.f; to the Water Supply Act of 1958
(P,L. 500, 85th Congress, Title in), .10 as/endcd- Such capacity, under
present policy, nu-.y be rcKorved entirely for \:,Mtcr supply, or may be
provided by joint use of seasonal flood control or otliar storage. Costs
allocated to water supply for future use may not: ordinarily exceed 30 percent
of the total project construction costs, but; exceptions may be recoinr.iended.
Corjts are reimbv.rsable by the water uners, through a locrl public agency,
over a 40 to 50-year period at Feeler;:.] interest rates. An interest-free
period, until supply is first: used but not exceeding ten yenro, is permitted
undc-r the Itw. Interim use for irrigation in the western States may be
cor:r,idcred under the terivin of Recl;.r,:ation L;:w, The coiv.prehensive north-
United States wcito.r- supply study uncU'.r \rcy pursuant to Title I of
approved 21 October 1905, recor^niaes the increasing
Federal interest in the solution of regional water supply problems.
1.1. ]iS££.r_Ql1?ii:L£y Control . Reservoir capacity for streamflow regulation
to improve v;ater quality IT. ay be recommended pursuant to the VJfiter Pollution
Control Act of 195G (P.L. 660, 84th Confess), as ajnended by Section 2 of
the 1961 Act (PCL. 87-88). Such regulation v.?.y not be a substitute for
ndc.nuate treatiri?.nt or other methods oi" controlling waste at the source.
The crpacity r.-.r.y be reserved entirely for s tro';«Tif low regulation or i.-iay be
prcvJ.ded by joint use of storage riorvrlnf; other purposes. Costs allocated
to water qxiality control may be assu;v,od by the Federal Government if the
benefits are v/idcoprend.
^' Rg/-' ^ ^ '3.t:Aon '• Legislative and adrainiKtrative. policy encourages non-
Federal interests to develop recreation are.as and facilities at Federal
projects. Outdoor recreation, including cvih; ncement of fish and wildlife
for fishing and hunting, r;ay be. recon-r.iended as a purpose of Federal water
resources projects pursuant to the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of
1965 (P.L, 89-72), If non-Federal interests agree to cooperate in recrea-
tional development, the separable costs of recreational facilities may be
shared equally between Federal and non-Federal interests and the joint
costs allocated to recreation may be borne by the Federal Government.
Cost-sh.ari.ng in recreational development of authorised reservoir projects
depends on the specific authorizing legislation, the statue of completion
of the basic project, and the applicability of general legislation.
Section 4 of the 1944 Flood Control Act, as amended, permits development
of recreational facilities at non-reservoir projects. Administrative policy
provides for Federal participation if non-Federal interests will share
equally in the coot, arid will assume operation and maintenance. Certain
minlu'.um basic facilities for public health and safety may be provided at
Federal expense. The fees established and collected pursuant to the Land
and V2ater Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (1VU 88-578) at qualified
federally operated recreation areas are deposited to the credit of the Fund.
-------
EP 1165-2-1
28 Oct 6G
That-Act-, provides for grr.nts to States, their subdivisions, or other units,
for planning s cur.ended by the River and Harbor Act of October 23, 1962 (P,L.
87-874), authorised the Federal Governmant to assume up to 50 percent of
the cost of construction for protecting publicly owned or publicly used
beaches; and up to 70 percent for protection of publicly owned shore parks
or conservation areas subject to certain conditions in Section 103 of the
1962 Act. Kon-I'ederol interests are required to assuma all remaining costs,
including land:;., maintenance and repairs, ar.d provide assurances that they
will hold and cave the United States free, from damages, remedy pollution
conditions that would endanger the health or: bathers, r.vid. maintain public
ownerfjhip and use of the protected shores on viiich Federal aid is based.
When periodic beech nourirhr.if.nt is part of the best plan and a more
economical r;;?.r.:dia] ire, as u re than other mcr.s.ureri, authorisation may be
recommended for a specified limited time.
15. Protection Apa:inst F1 oo:.;• Result:.:'.' From Hurricane Or Abnormal
Tides,. Tlie Corps 01 Lngir.enrs may propose pi;.us, for the protection of areas
bordering oceans, estuaries or lalcr.s which are subject to inundation as a
result of hurricanes, other high winds, or unusual tidal_phenomena. In
presenting such plans for author!." at ion, by the Congress it is the policy
of the Chief of lingineers to recommend that non-Federal interests be
required to: (a) assume 30 percent of the first cost; and, (b) operate
&nd maintain the proposed works. This policy is based upon precedent
established by Congressional authorisation of previous projects. Multiple-
purpose projects for flood protection and the prevention of shore erosion
are frequently proposed,
16. Aouatic Plant Crntrol Fro^'ram. Section 104 of the River and
Harbor AcU^l~?5lT^LT~B5-"5^0)7 and amendments, authorises the Corps
of Engineers to cooperate with other Federal and non-Federal agencies
in. comprehensive programs for control arid eradication of plants. Non-
Federal interests must agree to hold and save the United States free
from damages that may occur from control operations and to finance 30
percent of the cost. The Federal Government rr.ay finance the research
and planning costs of the program. Funds are allocated on a priority
basis and there is a $5,000,000 annual limitation on Federal funds for
the total program.
-------
i-:r H65-2-1
28 Oct 66
C. SPECIAL SMALT, PROJECT PROGRAMS
.5l££iit..i.°L1l' Several laws provide general authority
that: permit Li,c Secretary oi the Army and the Chief of Engineers to authorize
projects of limited scope within fiscal year appropriations. A project can
be recommended under one of these authorities only after investigation
clearly demonstrates its engineering feasibility and economic justification,
and it: is determined that it will be complete, in itself and require no
additional v/ork to be effective. An investigation is made upon receipt of
a formal request submitted to the District Engineer by a prospective
sponsoring agency fully empowered under State lav; to provide the required
local cooperation.
18. Small Flood Control Projects. Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control
Act, as amended by Section 205 of" the "1962 Flood Control Act (P.L, 87-874),
provides authority to the Chief of Engineers to construct small flood control
projects that have not already been specifically authorized by Congress.
The Federal cost of projects undertaken pursuant to this legislation may
not exceed $1 million. The local sponsoring agency must agree to provide,
without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way ,
including highway, highway bridge, and utility relocations and alterations;
hold and save the United States free from damages; maintain and operate the
project after completion; prevent future encroachments on improved channels,
and assume all project costs in excess of the Federal cost limit of $1 million.
19. Snralj- N£vj_fuvt_ipn_ P^cnect^s . Section 107 of the River and Harbor
Act of 14 July 1960 (P.L. 80-645), as amended, provides authority for the
Chief of Engineers to develop, construct, and maintain small navigation
projects that have not already been specifically authorized by Congress.
The Federal cost of projects undertaken pursuant to this legislation may
not exceed $500,000. A Section 107 project can be constructed only if a
State, municipality, or other public agency of the State empowered under
State law has sufficient legal and financial authority to provide local
cooperation and participation. Non-Federal interests must agree to meet
the same cooperation requirements as for regularly authorized commercial
and recreational navigation projects, and in addition assume all project
costs in excess of the Federal cost limit of $500,000.
20. Small Bench Erosion Control Projects. Section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1'962 (P.L. 87-874), as 'amended, provides authority for
the Chief of Engineers to develop and construct small shore and beach
restoration and protection projects that have not already been specifically
authorized by Congress.' Each project under Section 103 must be limited to
a Federal cost of not more than $500,000, including any Federal share of
periodic nourishment cost. Local cooperation is otherwise based on the
same requirements as for regularly authorized larger beach erosion control
projects .
-------
KP 1165-2-1
28 Oct. 66
21. ^Lri:ilr'J}!l(L^l£j?lir:-Lj:-ti\i(:'£|J: fo;M']c.od_Co:iU-ol_. Section 20S of
the 1954 Flood Control Act (i',L. 780, 8 Jr"d~"con -Tress') authorizes clearing
and straightening of stream channels and the removal of accumulated snags
and other debris in the interest of flood control. Each project selected
must be. limited to a Federal cost of $100,000. The non-Federal sponsoring
agency must agree to provide without cost to the United States all lands, '
easements, rights-of-way , and all required alterations and relocations in
utility facilities; hold and save the United States free from damages;
maintain the project after completion; assume all project costs in excess
of $100,000; and provide a cash, contribution toward construction costs
where "windfall" land enhancement or other special benefits would accrue,
The cash contribution, where required, is computed in accordance with
existing policies for regularly authorized projects.
2 2 . Protection of E_ss_o_n t i al Highways^ Hj_ehv,v< V_TVrld r. e Approaches
and Public V.'orks . Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control AcY~provTdes
special authority to the Chief of Engineers to construct bank protection
works to protect such public, works as highways, highway bridge approaches,
municipal water supply systems and sewage treatment plants which are
endangered by flood-caused ban!; erosion, A Section 14 project must be
limited to a Federal cost of $50,000. The non-Federal sponsoring agency
must agree to provide without cost to the United States all lands,
easements, rights-of-way, and all required utility alterations and
relocations; hold and save the United States free from damages ; maintain
the project after completion ; assume, all project costs in excess of the
Federal cost limit of $50,000; and provide a cash contribution in
proportion, to any special benefits.
D „ DISASTER ilZLIEF AKD EMERGENCY PROGRAMS
23. Flood and ro^stal^^ejr^en^v^r^rf^tj^ns^. The Flood Control Act
^
of 1941, as amended by Public Law 99, 64th Congress and other Acts,
provides the Corps of Engineers with a special continuing authority for
flood and hurricane storm emergency operations,. Activities include.
preparation for flood and c.o:..',tal storm emergencies, flood fighting and
rescue work, and repair and restoration of flood control works, and of
federally-authorized shore protection structures. The authority does
not extend to reimbursement of local expenditures for flood fighting
or for post- flood repairs and improvement. The Corps encourages proper
non-Federal maintenance or protective works and advance preparation for
eraergenci.es, including stockpiling of material and training of personnel.
Non-Federal cooperation for emergency rehabilitation work under P.L. 99
is required substantially as for regular flood control projects. Special
cooperation is required for repairs which provide better projects or
eliminate local maintenance deficiencies.
24. Disaster _Ass is tance bv Corp s_ of nr.: inc;_erB . The President,
pursuant t o~th7TTd e r. a 1 Disaster Act of 1950 (P.L. 875, 81st Congress),
declares "major disasters." The Corps of Engineers may be. called upon
-------
EP 1165-2-1
28 Get 66
by the Office of Emergency Planning, (OEP) to participate in disaster assistance
under the; P_L. 875 program, which supplements available assistance under other
statutory authority. The authority of the OEP National Director has been
delegated to OEP Regional Directors. Authority to respond to an OEP request:
has been delegated by the. Chief of Engineers to Division Engineers. Under
P.L. 875 local authorities request Federal assistance through State channels
to the appropriate OEP Regional Director. Corps participation in P.L. 875
disaster assistance usually consists of debris removal, and emergency repair
or temporary replacement of public facilities and other protective works
essential to the preservation of life and property. It may include aid to
State and local authorities in developing project applications, making initial
determination of eligibility (subject to OEP certification) and reimbursing
State and political subdivisions for eligible work done, by them. In cases
of imminent necessity, the Corps r.ay take ir.r.icdiate action to save human
life, prevent human suffering or mitigate great destruction or damages to
property. Such action may be taken in a disaster not warranting P.L. 875
action, or prior to such action. Authority for such action stems from the
statutory authority of the Corps for flood fighting and rescue operations,
or the established policies and practices of the Corps and the Department
of the Army.
FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS:
'
MILES L. WAC'iEXDORF
Colonel, Corps of E
Executive
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OR--ICCOJ- TMC cHir.F- o- cr-.'c. i NCI: Ks
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314
IN REPLY REFER TO
ENGCW-P
SUBJECT: Late Stage Public Meetings
25 March 1971
1. Reference is made to EC 1120-2-55 on Public Meetings in Planning,
dated 1 September 1970, and to EXGCW-PD letter thereon, dated
3 September 1970.
2. We are encountering increasing difficulty in reviewing and coor-
dinating reports on planning studies for which there, have been no
timely late stage public meetings. This situation also complicates
project implementation. Accordingly, action by the Board of engineers
for Rivers and Harbors is being held up on three recently submitted
reports which have .shortcomings in this regard, and the reporting
officers are being required to hold public meetings even though the
public notices have been issued.
3. Reports which do not comply with EC.1120-2-55, particularly para-
graph Ga(3) on late stage public meetings, should not be submitted for
revicw to the. board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors nor. should
public notices thereon be issued. Additionally, for those studies
where there have been no recent late stage public, meetings and there
arc indications that public acceptance may have changed materially or
that further public views should be sought, a further late stage public
meeting will be held. Similarly, a further meeting will be held in
those cases where there have been substantive changes in the tentative
plan previously presented. In all cases, however, where no structural
improvements by the Corps of Engineers are to be recommended, late stage
public meetings will be held only at the discretion of the reporting
officers, giving appropriate consideration to public participation
aspects, unusual circumstances, and other pertinent factors.
FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS:
F. P. KOISCH
Major General, USA
Director of Civil Works
-------
S - 28 Feb 71
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EC 1120-2-55
Office of the Chief of Engineers
ENGCW-PD Washington, D. C. 20314
Circular L September 1970
No, 1120-2-55
EXPIRES 30 JUNE 1971
INVESTIGATION, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Public Meetings in Planning
1. Purpose. This circular sets forth the policy, responsibility, and
guidance for holding formally organized and announced public meetings
in connection with all Civil Works planning activities.
2. Applicability. The circular applies to all Corps of Engineers instal-
lations and elements having Civil Works planning responsibilities.
3. References. ER 1135-2-5.
4- Definition. As used herein, the terms "public meeting" and "announce-
ment of public meeting" are synonymous with the; previously used terms
"public hearing" and "notice of public hearing", and do not include in-
formally organized meetings which may also be open to the public. These
changes in terminology apply only to Civil Works planning activities, in
keeping with this circular. The intent is to introduce a change in tone
to encourage sincere, meaningful two-way communication.
5. Purposes of Public Meetings. It is the policy of the Chief of Engi-
neers to conduct his Civil Works program in an atmosphere of public under-
standing, trust, and mutual cooperation. All interested parties are to be
informed and afforded an opportunity to be fully heard and their views
considered in arriving at conclusions, decisions, and recommendations in
the formulation of civil works proposals, plans, and projects. Public
meetings provi.de the principal means of accomplishing this objective.
Thus, the purposes of public meetings are to inform interested parties
about studies and proposals related to water resources development; to
give them an opportunity to freely, fully, and publicly express their
views concerning such studies and proposals; to obtain factual information
to assist in arriving at sound conclusions and recommendations; and to
contribute to interagency coordination.
a. The first purpose requires that interested parties receive suf-
ficient information to understand how their interests are affected by the
problems and proposals under consideration; to determine what factual
material information is available to them and where it can be obtained;
and to formulate alternative proposals when appropriate.
This circular supersedes Section IX of EM 1120-2-101, 12 Oct 1964
1
-------
EC 1120-2-55
1 Sop 70
b. The second purpose is important: both for the substance of the
views expressed and for the satisfaction of an interested party that his
case has been heard. The opinions expressed may also reveal situations
or sources of dissent, controversy, or support, and help to delineate
areas of conflict or misunderstanding which need to be resolved, if
possible.
c. The third purpose is to obtain factual information as distinct
from opinion, although facts may often be better obtained by other means.
A meeting can, however, contribute to verification of facts obtained
elsewhere. The information to be obtained could relate to problems, needs,
potential solutions, or other matters that might not be known to the Corps.
d. As a fourth purpose, public meetings also have value in coordi-
nating studies with other Federal and non-Federal agencies.
6. Holding of Publi_c Meetings. Public meetings will be held when needed,
in keeping with the policy and purposes stated herein. They will be held
generally as follows:
a. For specifically authorized planning studies:
(1) An initial meeting early in the course of each study, primarily
to advise on the nature and scope of the study and to open lines of com-
munication.
(2) A formulation stage meeting during the course of each study when
all alternative solutions are reasonably known but before a plan has been
tentatively selected. A meeting at this stage'is critical, and its
scheduling and conduct will be given careful attention in all instances.
(3) A late stage meeting before report completion, once a solution
has been tentatively selected. In the event that, due to the nature of
the study, the formulation stage meeting was, in effect, also a late
stage meeting and the proposed plan was a foregone conclusion at that
meeting, a third meeting may be dispensed with. However such dispensation
will require specific approval by the Chief of Engineers, and the request
therefor must clearly demonstrate that no residual requirement is being
imposed on the Board of Engineers for R.ivers and Harbors.
(4) Prior to final action by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors when non-Federal interests request such public meetings- in their
response to the announcement of the public release of the field report
and the Board dec ides favorably on such requests. Normally, there will be
no need for such meetings if adequate meetings have been held by the
reporting officers.
-------
EC 1120-2-55
1 Sep 70
b. For all planning studies under continuing authorities.
At least one meeting will be. held during the course of each study. The
number and timing of the meetings is left to the discretion of the
reporting officer.
c. In all special situations where either the public or the Corps,
or both, would benefit by the exchange of views and information. Possi
bilities include situations of unusual time lapse or unexpected develop-
ments since the last public meeting, unusual interest or controversy, and
advance planning of authorized projects.
7. Conduct of Public Mee^ings_. Public meetings will normally be chaired
by the senior officer in view of the importance of these meetings and the
need to foster public participation and good public relations. When
necessary, he will designate a suitable representative. The meetings may
be held jointly with other agencies when desirable. All public meetings
will be a fair and impartial two-way communication. As such, they will
be as informal and simple as possible, and make as much use as they can of
uncluttered graphics, slides, and displays.
a. At the beginning of a meeting, the presiding officer will explain the
general purposes of public meetings and the specific situation or reason
for the one being held. Subsequently, he will, as appropriate, present the
problems and needs under study, the status of pertinent plans, programs,
and improvements, the programs or improvements desired by non-Federal
interests, the formulation of a plan or solution which considers all ap-
propriate measures and is not limited to considerations of Federal con-
struction measures, participation and coordination in such formulation,
plan accomplishments and effects, both advantageous and" disadvantageous,
and Federal and non-Federal responsibilities. In discussing formulation,
national objectives can be cited as well as technical and economic criteria
and environmental and other considerations. All plausible alternatives
should be mentioned and commented upon, however infeasible in the specific
case. In particular, participation by others in the study and coordination
will be explained to clearly demonstrate the cooperative nature of the
effort.
b. Following the presiding officer's statement, all interested parties
will be given an opportunity to be heard. All communications received to
be placed into the meeting record will also be read or summarized to the
extent practicable.
8. Arrangements for_Pub 1 i c Me e_tir>gs.. Interested Members of Congress will
be consulted regarding an appropriate time and place for meetings, their
intent to participate, and their knowledge of responsible persons to be
informed of the meetings. Preliminary contacts will be made to obtain
participation by persons and organized groups, including those with conser-
vation and environmental interests, whose local knowledge renders their
-------
EC '1120-2-55
1 Sep 70
opinion of value, and to obtain a fair cross section of opinion, both pro
and con. Meetings will be held in the locality or localities most con-
venient to the people of the area under investigation, and local con-
venience will be recognized in selection of the place, date, and hour.
In the case of public meetings by the Board of -Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors, such meetings may be held in Washington, D. C. if the Board
considers this more advantageous to the. purpose/of the meeting. When
Board public meetings are held in the field, the appropriate field office
will act as liaison, make all pertinent arrangements, and ca'rry out all
the usual meeting activities as requested by the Board.
9. Advice to Non-Federal Interests. Good public relations practices will
be observed and, to the extent practicable, local interests will be
advised to organize their case so that all pertinent aspects of their
problem may be rapidly and effectively presented. In particular, inter-
ested parties will be requested to submit detailed factual data on the
justification of their requests. Any information suitable for written
transmission to the public to clarify the issues for interested parties,
assist them in preparing factual material and expressions of views or
opinions, and indicate possible alternative courses of action should be
supplied to them in advance of a meeting. Without such advance infor-
mation, local interests will often be unable to contribute in full measure
to the meeting and they may feel that their views have not been adequately
considered. Insofar as practicable, advice and advance information to
interested parties should be presented in the announcement.
10. Announcements of Public Meetings. Announcements of public meetings
will be issued under the letterhead of the issuing office, dated, and
signed by the senior officer concerned. In the case of preauthorization
studies, they should be similar 'to the guide wording in Appendix A,
tailored to fit the situation and status of the study. More drastic
adaptation will be needed for special meetings or situations. In any event,
the guide wording should not be unreasonably adhered to. Moreover, the
announcements should be written in layman's language and be informative and
inviting in format and content. Their tone should reflect a sincere intent
to produce a mutual exchange of views ah.d information'. In this regard,
the announcements should in all cases avoid implications that final de-
cisions have been made.
11. Distribution of Announcements. Announcements of public meetings will
be distributed directly to all interested parties and agencies, including
the press, about one month in advance of the meeting. They may be in-
serted as an advertisement subject to the requirements for authority to
advertise as prescribed in ER 1180-1-1. Copies' will also be supplied to
Postmasters nnd other agencies where they may be posted for public infor-
mation. Distribution will be accomplished from a prepared distribution
-------
EC 1120-2-55
1 Sop 70
list for which up-to-date records will be kept of parties or agencies
desiring copies of announcements. Distribution of the announcement will
include the fpllowing, who will also be furnished one copy of the distri-
bution list:
Ojjan_t i_t_y_
Members of Congress, concerned " 2
(One copy of announcement and list to home address,
and one copy of each to Washington, D. C.,'office)
(Members of Congress will be listed under a heading
"Congressional," with Senators in order of seniority,
grouped by States, first, followed by Representatives
in same manner. Seniority is based upon latest period
of continuous service and can be determined from the
Congressional Directory.)
Chief of Engineers (Attn: ENGCW-PD) 5
Governor or designated representative of St-ates 1
affected
Board of Engineers for Riyers and Harbors 1
Coastal Engineering llesearch Center (Only for meetings 1
concerning shore protection and restoration)
Division.Engineer 2
12. Record of Meeting.. A complete record of the proceedings of public
meetings will be taken stenographically or by electrical transcription,
and a written record will be made therefrom. Study reports, sent by
reporting officers to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors will
be accompanied by one copy of the pertinent written record, including the
announcement and list of persons notified. The Board will forward these
materials to the Chief of Engineers upon completion of Board action on the
report. In all other cases, the materials will be supplied to the Chief
of Engineers in one copy at the tine of submission of a study report or
other primary document on the subject for which the meeting was held. The
records of lengthy or; involved meetings will be accompanied by digests.
Copies of the record for representatives of other agencies participating
in joint meetings will be supplied in accordance with any arrangements
made by them with the responsible senior officer. Local interests will
be advised of their prerogative to arrange for copies of the record at the
cost of reproduction.
-------
EC 1120-2-55
1 Sep 70
^3' Joint Public Meet: ings. Representatives of other Feder'al agencies
or non-Federal public agencies may actively participate in joint public
meetings whenever such organizations have a particular interest and
express a desire to participate. Notification of a desire to participate
a'nd the subsequent designation of a" par ticipant should be accomplished
officially by written communications from a high level. It should be
understood that the agency representative designated should be knowledge-
able in the subject of the meeting, that the Corps of Engineers is
responsible for arrangements and procedure, that the meeting will be
conducted by the Corps- presiding officer, and that the meeting will be
reasonably limited to Corps purposes' for the meeting. If the partici-
pating agency's interest requires extension of the meeting or additional
meetings, the additional expense will be the responsibility of that
agency.
14. Funding . The expense of public meetings will be charged to the
pertinent program, project, or study, except for BERH public meetings
which will be charged to BERH funds..
15. Hand a t o ry Re c onime nd a t i on s . This circular will be revised for
issuance as a regulation at a later date. Division Engineers will
furnish their comments and recommendations for revision, ATT: ENGCW-PD
(Mr. Pointon) , by 28 February 1971. Recoiomendations should cover the
appendix- also , and drafts of additional appendices may be furnished,
Annotated, edited, or rewritten copies of the circular clearly showing
comments or recommended revisions maybe included. Comments are invited
on any pertinent aspect of the circular, including joint meetings, formal
distribution lists, numbers of copies of statements to be submitted for
the record, digests, furnishing of records, and funding.
FOR THE CHIEF- OF ENGINEERS:
0
J^
f I J. B. NEWMAN
/ / Colonel, Corps of Engineers
1 Appendix \_/ Executive Director of Civil Works
Guide' Wording for
Announcement
-------
EC 1120-2-55
APPENDIX A 1 Sep 70
GUIDE WORDING FOR ANNOUNCEMENT
OF PUBLIC MEETING ON A PREAUTHORIZATION STUDY
^
r pose
.SIM)
MEETING TO BE 1IELD AT
ON Jtiate)
P M F 9 T
J. olio, i-J • O p J- «
IN AUDITORIUM OF
(Street Address)
(City and Stat?.^
The Congress of the United States has directed the Corps of Engineers to
make a study of the (describe study and its purpose, and identify study
area). This requirement is contained in the (identify and
cite or paraphrase appropriate acts or resolutions, or portions thereof).
In order that the study may be responsive to the desires and needs of
affected or interested parties, a public me.etirig will be held as
indicated above. The purpose of this ir.ee.ting is to exchange information
concerning the study, the water resource and related problems involved,
and possible solutions. A map of the study area is attached. Infor-
mation is also sought on ecological and environmental conditions and
problems in the study area.
Generally known problems and needs consist of (very briefly
list problems and needs, status of existing plans and improvements,
improvements, desired, and possible solutions, tailored to suit the
situation and status of the study.)
All interested parties are invited and urged to be present or represented
at this meeting, including respresentatives of Federal and non-Federal
public agencies; agricultural, commercial, industrial, business, trans-
portation, and utilities interests; civic, ecological and environmental,
boating, recreation, and fish and wildlife organizations; and interested
or concerned citizens, property owners, and other interests. All
parties will be afforded full opportunity to express their views and
furnish specific data on matters pertinent to the study, including
technical, economic, and ecological and environmental material. Statements
should be'supported by factual information insofar as practicable.
(Identify matters or data on which information is particularly being
sought.)
-------
EC 1120-2-55
APP A
1 Sep 70
Oral statements will be heard but, for accuracy of record, all important
facts and statements should be submitted in writing, in duplicate.
Written statements may be handed to the presiding officer at the meeting
or may be mailed beforehand to. the undersigned at the Corps of Engineers
address in the letterhead. Statements so mailed should indicate that
they are in response to this announcement. All statements, both oral and
v/ritten, will become part of the official written record on this study
and will be made available for public examination.
Final selection of a plan for recommendation to higher authority will be
Biade only after full consideration is given to the views of responsible
agencies, groups, and citizens. However, this cannot be taken as an
indication that the Federal Government will undertake any improvements
or programs. Although the study may result in recommendations for under-
takings by the Federal Government, their accomplishment would depend
upon subsequent authorization and funding by the U. S. Congress.
Please bring this announcement to the attention of anyone you know who is
interested in this matter.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EC 11 65-?.-100
Office of the Chief of Engineers
KNCCV/ P/ENGPA/ Washington, D, C. 20314
1WKAP
Circular 28 Ma j
No. 1165-2-100
EXPIRES 30 MARCH 1972
WATER RESOURCES POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES
Public Participation in Writer Resources Planning
*• Purp°se- T° specify objectives', policies, procedures, responsi-
bilities and other information relevant to the systematic development,
conduct and evaluation of public participation programs .in Corps' water
resources planning activities.
2. Applicability. All Corps of Engineers' installations with civil works
planning responsibilities.
^' References. Appendix C includes a Bibliography of applicable
Corps' directives and important references relating to public partici
pation.
4. Definition. Public Participation is a continuous, two-way
communication process which involves: (a) promoting full public under-
standing of the processes and mechanisms through which water resources
problems and needs are investigated and solved by the Corps; (b) keeping
the public fully informed about the status and progress of studies and
the findings and implications of plan formulation and evaluation activities
(essentially ''Public Information"); and (c) actively soliciting from all
concerned citizens their opinions and perceptions of objectives and
needs, and their preferences regarding resource use and .alternative
development or management strategies, and any other informa'tion and
assistance relevant to plan formulation and evaluation.
5. Background.
a. A growing amount of interest and concern relating to public
participation in federal planning and decision-making is being expressed
by the President, the Congress, and the public in general. In essence,
the concern focuses on the view that federal program procedures are
not sufficiently responsive to an expressed demand by the public to be
actively involved.
-------
EC 1165-2-100
28 May 71
b. This concern represents less an indictment of past performance
than an indication of changing patterns of social structure and an
accompanying desire for participation in decision-making by a growing
number of diversified interests. In this regard, the Chief of Engineers
has noted:
In the past we have conducted our planning activities
with a relatively small percentage of the people who
have actually been concerned, and these were Federal.
state and local government officials of one kind or
another. Today there are, in addition, vast numbers
of private citizens who. individually, or in groups and
organisations and through their chosen representatives,
are not only keenly interested in what we are doing
with the Nation's water resources but who want to have
a voice and influence in the planning and management
of those resources. . . we cannot and must not ignore
(these) other voices. ...'''
c. The Chief has made the Corps' position clear on this problem:
I consider public participation of critical importance
to the Corps' effectiveness as a public servant. It
is. . .an area I won't be satisfied with until we can truly
say that the Corps is doing a superb job, ":
d. This will not be an easy task, for public participation must
confront squarely the considerable problem of identifying and weighing
people's values, attitudes and preferences. It is clear that there are
no simple formulas for success, but there is one prerequisite--the
sincere desire and willingness to seek out and take into account all
interests and points of view and, in so doing, to put our own values,
attitudes and preferences in proper perspective.
6. Program Obiectives. The basic objectives of all Corps of Engineers'
public participation activities are as follows;
Remarks by LTG F. J. Clarke, Chief of Engineers, before the
Short Course on Public Participation in V/ater Resources Planning,
Atlanta, Georgia, 2 Fob 71.
-------
e
EC 1 ) 6r> ..;>-i on
28 May 1971
a. To insure that solutions to water resources problems satisfy
the needs and preferences of the people to the maximum degree possib]
within the bounds of local, state and federal interests, responsibilities
and authorities.
b. To seek a clear consensus among concerned citizens and
their official representatives by facilitating the resolution of a contro-
versy.
c. To build public confidence and trust in Corps' planning and in
Corps' planners.
7. Program Policy. In order to accomplish these objectives the Corps
will:
a. Present information which will assist the public in defining
its water resources problems, needs, objectives and priorities, and
in understanding Corps' planning responsibilities and the planning
process and how they can participate effectively in it.
b. Develop channels through which the public can express its
perceptions of problems, needs and priorities, and its preferences
regarding resource use alternatives and corresponding development
or management strategies.
c. Provide structured opportunities for the public to influence
the formulation of planning and management alternatives, clarify and
weigh conflicts, a7id achieve consensus regarding a course of action.
d. Actively promote effective coordination between Corps' planning
and the plans and programs of other federal, state and local agencies.
8. Responsibilities. All public participation programs for planning
activities will be developed, conducted and evaluated jointly by planning
and PAO personnel under the overall direction and management of
planning.
9. Program Planning Requiremejnts^ Public participation plans:
a. Will be an integral part of each Plan of Survey. Detail, including
identification-of resource requirements, should be o.onsi stenf. with other
parts of the Plan of Survey.
-------
EC 1165-2-100
28 May 1971
b. Will be developed for all on-going preautborizalion survey
studies. The scope of such programs and the amount of "backtracking"
activities required must be determined on the basis of local considera-
tions. Increases in study costs of more than ten percent resulting from
these activities should be explained and forwarded, through channels,
to OCE (Attn: ENGCW-P) for approval, with copy to IWRAP.
c. Should be considered for post-authorization planning studies
whenever there are substantive changes from, the authorized plan, new
interests are affected or changed conditions warrant such action.
d. Are not required for studies conducted under special continuing
authorities (reference ER 1165-2-101), However, consideration should
be given to an appropriate degree of public participation in each study.
10. Program Planning Instructions.
a. Public participation must be viewed-as an integral part of the
planning process,
b. There is ho single best approach to public participation. Program,
plans must be tailored to the particular "publics" concerned, the, relevant
information requirements, the overall planning situation and, of course,
the time, resources and skills available, including those that can be
contributed by local interests and outside consultants. Therefore, in
each district each individual plan will undoubtedly be somewhat different
in detail. In the final analysis, the detail and scope of programs developed
must be based upon the experience and judgment of those responsible for
program planning and implementation. Once developed, program plans •
must continuously be evaluated and adjusted to changing requirements.
c. Public participation program plans should be planned system-
atically, in accordance with basic program objectives and policy as defined
in paragraphs 6 and 7 above. The steps outlined below are suggested
as a disciplined approach to program planning. Clearly, the steps are
not completely-mutually exclusive and, thus, cannot be accomplished in
strict sequential order.
(1) Step I: Appendix A contains a generalized, simplified model
of the Corps' planning process. For each step in the planning process
-------
EC 1165-2-100
28 May 1971
identify two-way information requirements (outputs and feedback) as
clearly as possible. An example of this type of analysis is also include
in Appendix A.
(2) Step II: For each step in the planning process, identify the
relevant publics. A number of categories are listed in Appendix }}.
Within each basic category applicable to a specific study, identify
systematically each group, organization, agency, individual, etc. which
should be contacted. This is a continuing process.
(3) Step III: In terms of needs and publics as identified in Steps 1
and II, select carefully those public participation program elements
(e.g., news releases and other uses of media, mailings, telephone,
personal contacts, meetings (formal and informal), workshops, advisory
committees, etc. ) which appear to be most suitable, efficient and
effective in terms of the specific situation. Consider costs, time
requirements, capabilities of local personnel to apply the approaches
effectively, and other factors relating both to the Corps and the publics
involved. (Note: program elements required by existing Corps'
directives, e.g., public notices, public meetings, etc., will continue
to be employed. However, each office is encouraged to be innovative
and imaginative in their formulation and application. )
d. Care must be exercised in developing program, plans to assure
that the overall district program is properly balanced in terms of the
relative importance of studies, and that resources are not overcommitted.
With respect to individual studies, a balance should be achieved between
all aspects, including public participation. Necessary shifts in emphasis
between- study components should be considered as applicable.
11. Program Review. Each public participation program will be
discussed concisely in the survey report. The review should comprise
a summary of the programs in terms of what and how much was clone,
which publics were involved and to what extent, and any significant-
highlights, accomplishments or breakdowns. Supporting information
should be included as necessary. .As applicable, similar information
should be included in reports submitted under special continuing authori-
ties.
12. Program Evaluation.
-------
EC 1165-2-100
28 May 1971
a. District programs will be periodically evaluated by OCE
(ENGCW-P and ENGPA) in coordination with IWR.
b. The following information ghqyild be submitted to OCE (Attn:
ENGCW-P) with a copy to the Institute for Water Resources (Attn:
IWRAP), at any time on an optional basis:
(1) Any "Model" plans, particular approaches, new innovations
or other aspects of programs which proved particularly effective or
ineffective (describe what happened or didn't happen and why).
(2) A.ny particularly favorable or unfavorable experiences which
should be shared with others.
(3) Any needs for changes in policies, procedures, guidelines or
information relating to public participation or other aspects of the
planning process, as the result of experience.
(4) Suggestions for research, testing, training and development.
(.5) Suggestions for references which should be included in a public
participation Bibliography (see Appendix C).
c. As applicable, the above information \vill be distributed and/or
utilized in modifying program guidance.
1 3. Program Development and Testing.
a. A.ll offices to which this circular applies should exercise
initiative and innovation in formulating and testing approaches to encour-
aging and supporting public participation.
b. If possible, innovations should be pre-tested before implementa-
tion. Each approach should be carefully evaluated continuously to assure
that it is both efficient and effective in meeting needs.
c. OCE, in cooperation with I WRAP, will be responsible for
monitoring the development, conduct and evaluation of formal research
programs relating to public participation,
d. ENGCW-P, ENGPA and IWR(A.P) will, as resources and capa-
bilities permit:
-------
EC 1165-2-100
28 May 1971
(]) Provide, on request, assistance and support to field offices
in the development, conduct and evaluation of local, programs,
(2) Monitor and/or participate in the field testing and evaluation
of particularly promising approaches. Offices interested in participating
jn such an arrangement should contact IWRAP.
14. Additional Information. During the coining year the requirements
of this circular and other existing directives relating to public participa-
tion will be evaluated against changing needs and experience, modified
as necessary, and integrated into one or more, Engineer Regulations
in accordance with the provisions of EC 1120-2-60, "New System, of
Planning Directives," dated 16 November 1970. In addition, IWR will
proceed with the development of an Engineer Pamphlet on the subject of
public, participation which will contain detailed information and guide-
lines relating to public participation program planning, conduct and
evaluation.
FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS:
3 Appendices
APP A Ping Process &
Info. Requirements
APP B The Publics
APP C Bibliography
/6
J. B. NEWMAN
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Executive Director of Civil "
-------
EC! 1165-2-100
,^8 May 1.971
APPENDIX A
PLANNING PROCESS AXD INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Public participation plans will be developed within the framework of
the overall planning process. This Appendix includes a generalized,
simplified flow chart model of a typical Corps planning process. It
is included for illustrative purposes only. The process should be
expanded or otherwise modified as necessary to reflect local require-
ments. Examples of the identification of some of the basic information
requirements for several steps are also included (sec paragraph 10c(l)
of the basic EC). It should be noted that particular emphasis is put
on educating the public about the planning process and mechanisms
for public participation. This is extremely important and should be
stressed throughout the process. A comprehensive identification of
requirements should be made for each study.
A-l
-------
EC 1165-2-100
APPA
20 MAY 71
ALLOTMENT OF
SIUOV FUNDS
1 t
V 1
OUT-PUT
-iN»an.-.t PUSLIC of
STUDY.
-EXPLAIN ALL PHASES
AND ACTIVITIES CF
THE PLA.MING PROC-
ESS I'l DETAIL WITH
EMPHASIS ON MECHA.1;.
ISMS FOR PARTICIPA-
TION.
FtTDB/
ATIO.S 0
NEEDS
STUDY R
TORS
-siiicir I::FO. fi£-
G",P,Or;G PS03LCV3.
NEEDS, pniortlllcS.
GOALS AND OBJEC-
TIVES.
-DETERMINE AVAILA-
BILITY Of TECHNICAL
ANO OTHER NFORMA-
TIOX
-IQE'ITIFY RELATED
PLANS, PROGRAMS
A1103IUOIES.
-OETER'.'JNE POSSI-
BLE SOURCES OF
TECHNICAL ASSIST-
ANCE (FORMAL AND
INFORMAL).
F PROaiEMS,
ELATEQ FAC-
1 I
OUTPUT
-I'iHJRM PUSLIC OF
RESULTS OF PiULI'.'.l-
NAflY EVALUATION
OFSU.WEY.
-REVIE'.V PLANNING
A;;D PUBLIC PARTICI-
PATION PRDCESS^S.
PLAN
OF
SURVEY
FEEDBACK
-SOLICIT CO '.'.ME. MS
AND SUGGESTIO.'.S.
RECYCLE
AS
NECESSARY
CONDUCT STUDIES; fnmniATF A«>
,_ COLLECT IKFGRMA- V,E AND EVALUATE'
ESoMl'c0^.,"01- ^"RNATIVES
1 '
OUTPUT
- K.FOrtM PU'JLIC CF
APPRCVEQ i'L'i'J OF
KEY ASPECTS OF
STUOV AND SCHED-
ULE.
-REVIE'.V PLANNING
AND PUBLIC PARTICI-
PATION PROCESSES
AND MECHANISMS.
FEEDBACK
-SOLICIT TECHNICAL
A.'IJ OIIIER I\70R'1A.
TION.
AKOPREFEHE.VCESHE.
ALTERNATIVE SOLU-
TIONS TO PROBLEMS.
1
1 I
OUTPUT
I'.fORM PU8LIC Of
rir.'omos RE. FULL
ri^GE OF IMPACTS ft
CONSEQUENCES OF
V\FtOUS ALTERNA-
TIVES (IN TERMS
V/WCH AHE MEANING-
FUL TO THE PUBLIC).
-REVIEW PLANNING
AfJO PUBLIC PARTICI-
PATION MECHANISMS.
L •"
A
OUTPUT
-EDUCATE PU5LIC ON
ANALYSIS PROCE-
OUfiLS AND CRITERIA.
-INFORM PUBLIC OF
flVOt.'JGS & DETAILS
OF STUDIES, ANALY-
SES & EVALUATIONS,
-atV!E\V PLANNING
PROCESS AfJD MECHA-
NISMS FOrtPARTlCtPA-
II'J'I.
FEEDBACK
-SOLICIT INFOP.MA-
TION, VIEWPOINTS
ANOPnEFERENCES.
A-3
-------
EC 1165-2-100
APR A
MAY 71
FOflMULATE, ANA
^. LYZE AND EVALUATE
ALTERNATIVES
SELECT
PLAN
I I i
! I i
OUTPUT
HIDINGS Rf. FL
RANGE OF IMPACT
VARIOUS JSLltR
TIVES (IN TEF
WHICH AilE MEAf.
FUL TO THE PUDL
-REVIEW PIAN:,-
AfJD HIBUC PART
PATION MECHANIS
i I
FEEDBACK
-SOLICIT INFORMA-
TION. V EWFOINTS
Ali'D PREFERENCES.
LL
&
OF
JA-
'. S
Cl.
JG
C -
1S
I,
I FEEDBACK OUTPUT
ACTIONS Af.O Pi.E^Ffl. RCCOVV.ajCCD PLAW.
EfiCES. -REVItV, PLA'.'JI^G
PROCESS AM] MtCMA-
KIS'.'S FOR PARTICIPA
TIO'J.
FEEDBACK
OORSEME«r, *SSI!E1-
A\C£S A'JD COOI5D1-
NATION.
. :£E.T"!«.DS: . '.'»'l™r.r,:.?
REPORT
V
O U T P U t
RLforT ro^iTt\'i; IK-
CLUOl.'.'G h/JtfjALE
TOR Af*Y CHANGES I.'J
r,ECO!.'MEf.DATIO'.S
-DISCUSS FltVit,'.' S
PROCESS. I'.TALIQI'JG
f/ECHA'.'ISVS FOR FUt,
LIC PAR1ICIPATIO.V.
-INFORM PUE.LIC A-
BOUT POST AUTHORI
ZATION ACTIVI1IC5
(INCLUDING PLAN
MUG. CONSTRUCT ICn
AMD OPERATIONS).
'" FEDERAL AGENCIES *= BuEV' " "'" """
SEC/ARMY
1
FEEDBACK 1 \
-r/c'.iran CI:A;.GLS Foa'.'td ot PROGRESS
i*i r"jf-Lic OEJ:.LT:VLS, Af.'D ACTIO;.S TAKEH.
ERE?(CES
-------
EC 1165-2-100
28 May 1971
APPENDIX B
TH.E PUBLICS
1. Outlined below is a basic categorization of "publics. "
2. These categories should be. reviewed and modified as necessary
in accordance with the needs of individual studies.
3. Selection of specific groups, organizations and individuals within.
each category should be as broad and representative as possible in
terms of including those who are or might be affected by or concerned
about the plan.
4. Existing relationships should be continued, but communication
should not be limited to those groups, organizations and individuals
traditionally dealt with or those concerned only with water resources.
Water resources development impacts broadly on people with different
philosophies and points of view and on plans, programs and aspirations
of other agencies, groups, organizations and individuals. Public
participation must reflect this broad impact. Every effort should be
made to identify and bring into the process influential groups and
individuals (those who do or can significantly influence decisions as
well as those who actually make them). Local,- regional and national
aspects should be considered. The working list of individuals, groups
and organizations should be continuously reviewed and updated as
studies progress.
5. Basic Categories (including additional guidance as applicable):
a. Individual Citizens. This includes the general public and key
individuals who do not express their preferences through or participate
in any of the groups or organizations listed below.
b. Sportsmen's Groups.
c. Conservation/Environmental Croups.
d. Farm Organizations^
B-l
-------
KG 1105-2-100
AIM' I',
28 May 71
e° Property Owners and Users. To the extent that they can be
clearly identified, property owners that might be displaced by any
alternative which is being studied in detail should be encouraged to
participate. Property and homeowner associations and user groups
not identified elsewhere should also be identified.
f. Busines s-Indus trial. Chambers of Commerce and selected
trade and industrial associations should be involved. Business firms
substantively affected by any alternative being studied in detail should
be notified and encouraged to participate.
g. P r o f e s s i on a 1 Groups and Organizations. Consider local
chapters of national organizations (e.g., American Medical Associa-
tion, American Institute of Planners, American Society, of Civil
Engineers, etc.).
h. Educational Institutions. Include universities, high schools,
vocational schools. Give particular attention to key faculty members
and groups and to student groups and organizations.
i. Service. Clubs and Civic Organizations. Women's organizations
(League of Women Voters, American Association of University Women,
Garden Clubs, etc.); Lions, Kiwanis,, Rotary, etc*
j. Labor Unions;
k. State-Local Agencies. Include Planning Commissions,
Development Authorities, Councils of Government, OEO-Community
Action Agencies, etc.
1. State and Local Elected Officials,
m. Federal Agencies.
n° Other Groups and Organizations. Consider Urban League,
Urban Coalition, Consumer Groups, economic-opportunity groups,
political clubs and associations, ACLU, minority groups, religious
groups and organizations, other social action groups, etc-.
o. Media. Staffs of newspapers, radio, television, house
organisation and trade organs, etc.
-------
EC 1165-2-100
28 May 1971
APPENDIX C
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
This Bibliography includes selected references to official documents
and other information relevant to the planning, conduct and evaluation
of public participation programs. Additional information will be pro-
vided from time to time on a continuing basis,
1. Corps of Engineers' Directives
ER 360-1-1, Public Affairs. 31 Jul 70
ER 360-1-8, Notification, Members of Congress and State
Governors, 20 Dec 65
ER 360-2-10, Information Pamphlets, 24 Apr 67
ER 360-2-15, State Pamphlets, 23 Nov 65
EC 1120-2-55, Public Meetings in Planning, 1 Sep 70
EM 1120-2-101, Survey Investigations and Reports - General
Procedures, 12 Get 64
ER 1J 20-2-112, Coordination of Survey Reports with Metropolitan
Planning Agencies, 11 Apr 69
ER. 1135-2-5. Civil Works Activities, 14 Apr 67
ER 1165-2-15, Federal-Local Conferences, 20 Apr 67
ER 1165-2-500, Environmental Guidelines for the Civil Works
Program of the Corps of Engineers (including Appendix A -
J.WR Report 70-5), Nov 70
2. Other Corps of Engineers' Publications
OC.1C Multiple Letter, Subject: "Public Participation in Civil
Works Activities, " elated 19 Mar 71
"The Susquehanna Communication-Participation Study," IWR
Report 70-6. Dec 70
"Public Participation in Water Resources Planning, " IWR Report:
70-7, Dec 70;!;
3. Other Publications^
Sec Bibl^ogjraphicsj in IWR Reports. 70-6 and 70-7 (above).
C-]
-------
KG J365-2-100
APP C
28 May 71
League of Women Voters, Education Fund, The Big Water Fight,
Stephen Green Press, 1966
National Wildlife Federation, Conservation Directory, Wash. ,
D. C. , 1971 (available for $1. 50 from National Wildlife
Federation, 1412 16th Street, N. Wk , Wash., D. C. ).
This publication contains comprehensive lists of national,
state, regional and local conservation and related agencies
and organizations and their leaders.
Straayer, John (ed), Focus on Change: Intergovernmental
Relations in Water Resources Planning, Policy Science
Paper VM, Department of Political Science, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado, Jan 70 (this is a
"Proceedings" of a Corps of Engineers - sponsored seminar
and was distributed to all Corps of Engineers' installations).
Water Resources Council, Handbook for Coordination of Planning
Studies and Reports, Wash. , D. C. , Jun 69
Water Resources Council, "Water and Related Land Resources
Planning - A. Policy Statement, " Wash. , D. C. , 22 Jul 70
4, Ongoing Programs
The Seattle and Rock Island Districts are developing and testing
several approaches to public participation which have proven quite
effective thus far. Inquiries relating to these programs should be
addressed to the respective districts.'"
-''• Highly recommended.
C-2
-------
30 Jim 71
S - 9 jul 71
15 Jul 71
1 Scp 71
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EC' 1165-2-98
ENGCW-PV/BW/OC Office of the Chief of Engineers
Washington, D. C. 20314
Circular
No. 1165-2-98 28 May 1971
EXPIRES 31 DECEMBER 1971
WATER 'RESOURCES POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES
Preparation and Scheduling of Environmental Statements
1. Purpose. The purpose of this circular is to transmit a draft of
ER 1105-2-507, "Preparation and Coordination of Environmental State-
ments," for interim guida.nce and review comments, and to request informa-
tion concerning the schedule and submission of environmental statements
•for authorized Civil Works projects.
2. Applicability. This circular is applicable to all Divisions and
Districts having civil works functions.
3. Procedure.
a- Draft of ER 1105-2-507. The inclosed draft of ER 1105-2-507
(Appendix A), provides interim guidance for preparation and submission
of environmental statements pending clearance of the proposed procedures
with the CEQ and issuance in final form. The draft should be carefully
reviewed and your comments thereon furnished this office, Attention:
ENGCW-PV, to arrive no later than 9 July 1971.
b. Schedule of Environmental Statements. Information requested
below on the status of environmental statements is required for a cur-
rent analysis of field activities in this area and for compilation of
an overall status report to accompany the Fiscal Year 1973 budget
submission to the Office of Management and Budget. Guidelines for
submission of these data follow:
(1) Format. Attached as Appendix B is the format to be used in
preparing your schedule for submission of environmental statements.
(2) Categories. A separate report will be prepared for various
categories of projects as outlined below;
(a) Potential new start projects under the "Continuing Authorities
Projects" program for which detailed project reports have been prepared
or arc essentially completed.
(b) Construction and Land Acquisition Projects Not Yet Started.
A subdivision for: (1) Construction and (2) Land Acquisition should
be provided .
-------
EC 1165-2-98
28 May 71
(c) Request: for Initiation of Cgns_t_ruc_tj_on_and Land,Acqui-
sition for FY 1973.. A subdivision for; (1) Construction and
(2) Land Acquisition should be provided.
(d) Continuing Construction and Operation and Maintenance.
With reference to para 5.e. of the inclosed draft KR, IJTstric~t~and
operating Divisions will prepare a schedule of the plan for submis-
sion of environmental statements for this category of projects for
the 3-year time period. For the first year of this plan, a detailed
schedule will be provided in the form of Appendix B, inclosed. This
detailed schedule will be subdivided to show subcategories of (a)
Continuing Construction and Land Acquisition (with-a further sub-
division between these two subcategories) and (b) Operation and
Maintenance. Listings of those projects for which environmental
statement will be scheduled for submission in the second and third
year periods will also be submitted. These listings should be sub-
divided for each year to show continuing construction, land acqui-
sition, and operation and maintenance separately. Under this plan,
a project now in the late stages of,construction may have an environ-
mental statement scheduled for submission at a future time when, the
project will be in an operation and maintenance status. Such a pro-
ject should be listed in the category appropriate to the time of
scheduling submission of the. environmental statement. In the event
of a changed category, the project should be identified by a paren-
thetical remark reading: "Presently in construction category."
(3) Report Submission. Reports on schedules for submission
of environmental statements should be submitted marked to the-
attention of ENGCW-OC. The report for categories (2) (a), (2)(b),
and (2)(c) above should be submitted to reach OCE no later than
30 June 1971; for category (2)(d): (Exempt, para 7-2b, AR 335-15.)
(a) A first phase report providing a listing of the projects
considered probable for inclusion in the first year submission.
This report should be submitted to reach OCE no later than 15 July
1971.
(b) A second phase report providing for the first year submis-
sion projects, as finalized, the data specified by Appendix B. This
report will also include listings for the second and third year plans.
The second phase report on category (2)(d) above project V7ill be
submitted to reach OCE no later than 1 September 1971.
4 . Subiiiission P rioriti cs .
a. Priorities. In preparation of the 3-year plan for projects
in category 3(2)(d)~, priorities for early preparation will be given
to those projects having the greatest impact on the environment and
2
-------
EC 1165-2-98
28 May 1971
those projects where scheduled actions are such as to preclude the pos-
sible adoption of alternative plans. In applying the latter criteria
in determining priorities, whenever practicable considering overall
capabilities for preparation of environmental studies and statements,
statements should be filed well in advance of taking actions which
would tend to preclude adoption of alternatives. (See paragraph 10(b)
of CEQ "Guidelines.")
b- Schedules. Schedules for projects in category 3(2) (d),
should be developed after consulting appropriate Federal , State, and
local agencies and considering known views of the interested public.
The public will be informed that the schedule is being developed as a
step in the systematic review of the environmental impact of all Corps
activities. After completion the schedule will be made available to
the public and furnished to citizens and conservation and environmental
groups with known interests in the environmental considerations of the
projects on the lists.
-* ' Additional Guidance Required . The superficiality of the present
guidance toward adequately handling the actual environmental issues and
associated ecological impacts is recognized. Development of even frame-
work guidance on these subjects is proceeding slowly due to the- inadequate
state of knov.'lcdge , professional disagreement over major ecological is-
sues, present staff limitation, and the relative newness of the current
and accelerating thrust of environmental concerns. Information and
guidance will, however, be provided vi-a separate Engineer Circulars
at the earliest date possible on the concepts and methodologies appro-
priate to identification of primary and secondary environmental impacts,
evaluation of consequences of such impacts (including trade-off analysis),
environmental inventories, ecological baseline studies, and environmental
monitoring systems and procedures.
FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS:
2 Appendices // J. B. NEWMAN
APP A Draft ER 1105-2-507, (/ Colonel, Corps of Engineers
"Preparation of Executive Director of Civil Works
Environmental Statements"
APP B Schedule of Environmental
Statements
-------
APPENDIX A EC 1165-2-90
28 May 1971
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ER 1105-2-507
ENGCW-PV Office of the Chief of Engineers
Washington, D. C. 20314
Regulation
No. 1105-2-507 28 May 1971
INVESTIGATIONS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Preparation and Coordination of Environmental Statements
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject Paragraph page
Purpose i i
Applicability 2 1
References 3 ]_
Policy 4 ]
Compliance and Review 4.a 2
Further Guidance 4,b 2
Operation, Maintenance, and Management 4.c 2
Regulatory Permits 4.d 3
Agency Actions Requiring Statements 5 3
Legislation 5.a 3
Continuing Authorities 5.b 3
Construction or Land Acquisition Not Started 5.c 4
Requests for Initiation of: Construction or
Land Acquisition 5.d 4
Continuing Construction and Land Acquisition
and Operation and Maintenance 5.e 4
Regulatory Permits 5..f 4
Cooperative Shore Protection Projects 5.g 4
Regulatory Control of Project Resources 5.h 5
Disposal of Land for Port and Industrial
Uses 5.i 5
Exclusions 5.j 5
Budget Submission Data 6 5
Requests for Initiation of Construction
and Land Acquisition 6.a 5
Requests for Continuing Construction .and
Land Acquisition and Operation and
Maintenance Activities 6.b 5
Listings 6.c 6
General Considerations 7 6
Environmental Statements 7.a- 6
Planning Relationships 7.b 7
Public Participation 8 8
Policy 8.a 8
Pre-authorization Project Studies 8.b 8
Post-authorization Project Studies 8.c 9
Public Reviev? 8.d 9
A-l
-------
Subject
Paragraph Page
Coordination 9 9
Time Limits 9,a 10
Federal Agencies 9.b 10
State and Local Agencies 9.c 10
Availability of Environmental Statements 10 10
Draft Environmental Statements 10.a H
Final Environmental Statements 10.b H
Number of Copies 10.c 11
Preparation and Processing 11 H
Survey Reports 11.a H
Special Projects and Continuing Authorities 11.b 13
Authorized Projects Not Started 11.c 15
Operation and Maintenance and Continuing
Construction 11.d 16
Permit Applications 11.e 1?
Disposal of Land for Port and Industrial Uses 11.f 18
Implementation 12 20
Appendix A -
Appendix B -•
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Executive Order 11514, "Protection and
Enhancement of Environmental Quality,"
March 5, 1970 (35 F. R. 4247, March 7, 1970)
"Guidelines for Statements on Proposed
Federal Actions Affecting the Environment,"
Council on Environmental Quality
(36 F. R. 7724, April 23, 1971)
Preparation of Environmental Statements
Format Samples on Environmental Statements
Flow Charts on Chronology Regarding Preparation
and Coordination of Environmental Statements
ii
A-2
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ER 1105-2-507
ENGCW-PV Office of the Chief of Engineers
Washington, D. C. 20314
Regulation
No. 1105-2-507 28 May 1971
INVESTIGATION, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Preparation and Coordination of Environmental -Statements
1. Purpose . This regulation provides guidance for preparation and
coordination of Environmental Statements as required by Section 102(2)
(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190). The
procedures described in this regulation are consistent with the Council
on Environmental Quality Guidelines for Statements on Proposed Federal
Actions Affecting the Environment, dated 23 April 1971.
2. Applicability. This regulation applies to all elements of the
Corps of Engineers with civil works responsibilities for planning,
development, and management of water resource developments and is appli-
cable to both pre-author ization and post-authorization project activities
a. ER 1165-2-500, "Environmental Guidelines for the Civil Works
Program of the Corps of Engineers," 30 November 1970.
b. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190) (83 STAT.
852).
c. Executive Order 11514, "Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality," 5 March 1970 (35 F. R. 4247, March 7, 1970) (copy
inclosed as Appendix A').
d. Guidelines for Statements on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting
the Environment, Council on Environmental Quality (36 F. R. 7724, April
23, 1971) (Inclosed as Appendix B).
4- Policy. In formulating water resource development or management
plans" impact on the environment will be fully considered from the initi-
ation of pre-author ization planning through post-authorization planning,
construction, and project operation and management. Early and continuing
efforts in cooperation with appropriate local, State and Federal agencies
and the interested public, will be undertaken to develop alternatives
and measures which will enhance, protect, preserve, and restore the
quality of the environment or, at least, minimize and mitigate unavoid-
able deleterious effects. Preparation of the environmental statement
required by the Act will constitute an integral part of the pro-authori-
zation process. The statement will serve as a summation of evaluations
-------
ER 1105-?- -5 07
28 May 71
of the effect's that alternative actions would have on the environment and
as an explanation and objective, evaluation of the finally recommended
plan.
a' Com]}il_i a nc a and Review . Prior to forwarding, environmental
statements (including comr.ients and views of agenci'es, groups, and the
public) will be carefully reviewed by District and Division' Engineers to
insure that:
(1) The statement fully satisfies the requirements of this regula-
tion and the reference:-; cited herein.
(2) The project or proposal described in the statement is fully
consistent with the policies enunciated in the National Environmental
Policy Act, ER 11(V>-,-: -500, and other pertinent directives which have
implemented the Act.
b" F u r11i e r G u i dan c e. If after taking all measures within his
authority, the District or Division Engineer is unable to satisfy the
requirements of paragraph 4a Co^pj.j.ajicj^anc^ Re_v iew. above, he will report
the matter to the Chief of Engineers, Attention: ENOCH; and request the
necessary authority or guidance,
c. Opera tj. on .._!^a_i_n_te_na_n_cjC , and_Ha_nac,_ejn_a_n_t. In the development of
plans for operatioM, maintenance, and management activities, all possible
significant c, ffocU, ••.•" '.-.: •: :. v i. ronment v;ill be considered. Such consid-
eration will i ': lii(.'••- ..;:.-•• i'!.riri.vc- 'iSc.s o.i" available resources when the
proposed OG-M oc tivii:\ .vJ.U J.;. ^ .>..-J o ;. >ie ^t-ality of the environment, curtail
the beneficial uses of the environment, -or serve short-term purposes to
the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Typical, examples of
these activities which could have an adverse impact on the environment are
as follows:
(1) Disposal of dredged material in wetlands or marshlands.
(2) Disposal of polluted dredged material in unconfined or open
water areas.
(3) Debris collection and disposal activities.
(4) Resource management programs involving the cutting, sale and/or
disposal of forest resources; extensive plant disease eradication;
predator or vector control.; f,p ! aouatj.c plant control.
VV ' . , •'•, .-•."• •-;,,. '•_',: rfi'ich some environmental benefits must
be sacrificed in Un> inif rest•of other environmental benefits or economic
-------
ER .1.105-2-507
28 May 71
considerations, e.g. undesirable drawdown to provide water for power and
for downstream water quality control.
(6) Leases, licenses, righ ts-of -way , administrative permits, and
other actions involving use by others of project resources.
In evaluating permit applictgons , the
___
responsible Federal officer will carefully evaluate, the impact on the
environment of the proposed action considering environmental information
provided by the applicant, all advice received from Federal, State and
local agencies, and comments of the public. If the Federal officer
believes that granting the permit may be warranted but could lead to
significant environmental degradation, an environmental statement will
be prepared.
-"• Agency Actions Re qujL _r^g_^^aj:ejnerits_ . The following types of Corps
of Engineers actions will require the preparation of an environmental
statement by reporting officers. For those actions not identified in
this paragraph, reporting officers should request further guidance from
the Chief of Engineers, Attention: ENGCW. Where environmental state-1
ments have been previously filed and arc older than three yenrs or have
significant changes in the proposal or associated environment, the
statement will be updated, coordinated and transmitted to the CEQ.
a- Legis lati on . Recommendations or1 reports to the Congress on
proposals for legislation affecting Corps of Engineers programs includ-
ing proposal? to authorize projects (survey, review, and comprehensive
reports and legislation).
b. Cent i nuing Author it ies . Recommendations or reports on pro-
posals for authorization of projects by the Chief of Engineers or the
Secretary rjf the Army under special authorities, including detailed
Project Reports prepared under the following special continuing
authorities :
(1) Section 205, 1948 FCA, as amended (33 U.S.C 701s).
(2) Section 107, I960 R&11A, as amended (33 U.S.C. 577).
(3) Section 103, 1962 R&11A, as amended (33 U.S.C. 426g).
(4) Section 2, 1937 FCA, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701g).
(5) Section 3, 1945 R&JIA, as amended (33 U.S.C. 603a),
(6) 1909 R&HA, as amended (33 U.S.C. 5).
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
c . Cons true t ion or Land Acquis i t icm No I: S tarj:c.d . Initiation of con-
struction of ,land acquisition on projects which are.' not yet started but'for
which -fu':ds have been appropriated or arc provided by the current FY Appro-
priation Ac l .
^ ' R£q ues ts _f_q r _ Initiation of Construct icm or Land Acquis i t i o n .
Budget submissions requesting funds for the initiation of , cons truc-tion. or
land acquisition on authorized projects.
e' Continuing Construction and Land Acquisition, a nd_0p^? ration and
Maintenance . The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires an
environmental statement in those instances where a major Federal action has
a significant impact upon the environment. It is the desire of the Chief
of Engineers, though not required by the Act, to conduct a systematic
review of all Corps projects and to have environmental statements prepared
for all projects with impacts that may be considered significant for any
reason. In recognition of the heavy workload immediately imposed upon
District Engineers through this requirement ,- it is proposed that state-
ments on these projects be submitted over a span of three years. This
program contemplates the early submission of statements on those projects of
highest priority and so graduated that those of lowest priority will be the
last to be submitted. In determination of the. priority ranking of projects
under this requirement, those projects having the greatest irriDac t. upon the
environment and those projects where scheduled actions are such as to pre-
clude t n<_ possible adoption of alternative plans will be considered highest
in priority. A project can be exempted from this three year schedule
requirement if a statement has already been filed that is less than three
years old by the time of the President's budget submission and no significant
changes have taken place in the proposal or the associated environment.
f. Reg u 1 a t ory Per mi t s . Issuance of permits for structures, dumping,
or other actions in navigable waters of the United -States whenever any of the
Federal, state or local agencies which are authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards certify, or the District Engineer determines, that ,
the actior which it is proposed to permit would have a significant and
adverse affect on the quality of the environment. This regulation does not
apply to requirements for environmental statements of Federal leases for oil
drilling to be done on the outer continental shelf; Corps permits for such
drilling are confined to findings on the. effect of this activity .on naviga-
tion and jn national security; inquiries concerning environmental considera-
tions will be referred to the Federal leasing agency. See 33 CFR, Chapter
II, Part 209.131 "Permits for Discharges or Deposits Into Navigable Waters."
8- Cooperative Shore Protection Projects. Where the non-Federal
agency will accomplish the construction, a final environmental statement
will be on iile with CEQ prior to ,-idver tisemonc of the work. The statement
will be prepared by the District Engineer, following the guidance provided
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
by this regulation. in the event the non-Federal agency desires to pre-
pare the. draft environmental statement, copies will "be furnished the
District Engineer, who will review the statement and, if it is suitable,
proceed with coordination and further processing.
h* .MaiJ:£^QJIJ^£!lLl£l_olJ!>rgjcct Resources . Certain administra-
tive, actions regarding utilization of Corp? of Engineers project
resources have the potential of significantly affecting the environment.
These actions are normally initiated by outside parties and involve a
lease, license, permit, easement, or other entitlement for use. An
environmental statement will be prepared for these actions which may
include: leasing of project lands for industrial uses, airports, etc.;
requests for rights-oi-way for overhead utilities, pipelines, roads and
highways; mineral extractions such as sand, gravel, rock, etc., or any
other proposed use of project resources which could degrade the quality
of the environment. Where an environmental statement is deemed not
necessary because there will be no adverse effects, this finding will
be included in the transmitting report tc higher authority.
^• Disppsa 1 of _Lands for Port and Ir.du.s_tria] I1 ses . For disposal
of surplus project lands for development of port and industrial facili-
ties pursuant to Section 108 of River and Harbor Act of 1960 (PL 86-645)
(74 Stat. 487) (33 U.S.C 5/8), District Engineers will prepare an
environmental statement and process it with the proposed action to higher
authority.
)• Exc lu". ions . Specifically excluded from the r-equired prepara-
tion of environmental statements are the emergency flood control, shore
protection, and disaster recovery actions performed by the Corps of
Engineers pursuant to .its statutory authority under Public Law 99-84th
Congress (69 Stat. 186), Emergency Bank Protection for Highways, Highway
Bridge Approaches and Public Works (Sec 14, 1946 Flood Control Act)
(60 Stat. 641) (33 USC 701r), or as directed by the Office of Emergency
Preparedness under the provisions of Public Law 91-606 (84 Stat. 1744).
6. Budget Submission Da'.a. The time requirements for submission of
environmental statements as set forth below, have been established with
a view to meeting, to the maximum exce:;c, the requirements
specified by the Council on Environmental Quality. (See paragraph
10(c) of i-he CEQ "Guide! Lies .")
a . Reque s t s for Injj. ration of Construction and Land Acquisition .
For budget r e c o~m"ne n d a t i. ons in this category, final environmental state-
ments must have, been transmitted to CEQ by 1 September -;t the calendar-
year in which the budget is being submitted by Division and District
Engineers.
b Requests for Cont' "ii i n_g_C_ons true t i on and Land Acquisition and
Opera t ion_j^^Tl2li:i1£Jlc-z--^--.^'-i-i J—' Wil:r: rci:t:r-llce L ° paragraph 5c ,
for "thoso~pro joe i.s ^\; which environm-jr, t al statements are. .'.elected ior
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
submission under the first year of the three-year schedule, final statements
will have been submitted to CEQ act later than 1 January 1972, with tiie
statements scheduled for the second and third years being planned for
submission by 1 September 1972 and 1973, respectively.
c' Lis tings. The annual budget recommendations of Division Engineers
will provide a listing of projects recommended in each budget category
indicating the time of actual or scheduled submission of the final environ-
mental impact statements to the GEQ.
7. General Considerations .
a. Envi ronmen taI S ta teme n ts. The environmental statement is an
independent report summarizing the direct and indirect environmental impacts
of a proposed water resources development project or other proposal, taking
into consideration the detailed appraisal and analysis of Federal and state
agencies with jurisdiction by lav; or special expertise with respect to
environmental impacts and public concerns with particular emphasis on con-
servation and environmental action groups. Environmental statements will
be based on the considerations discussed below, the CEQ "Guidelines,"
Appendix B and the guidance contained in Appendix C. Statements will:
(1) Describe environmental impacts sufficiently to permit evaluation
and independent appraisal of the favorable and adverse .environmental effects
of the recommended proposal and each alternative. They will be simple and
concise, yet include all pertinent facts. In no case will possible adverse
effects be ignored or slighted in an attempt to justify an action previously
recommended or currently supported. Similarlyj care must be taken to avoid
overstating either favorable or unfavorable effects.
(2) Discuss significant relationships between the proposal and other
existing and anticipated developments. This will include not only Corps
proposals 'but actions by others, either public or private, which will affect
the impact of the project or will be affected by the project. These will
include both specific proposals and general trends.
(3) Discuss the significance of the regional and national environmental
impact of the project, as applicable. Conclusions should be supported with
information indicating the relative scarcity or abundance of the environ-
mental resources in question and other factors bearing on regional and
national significance.
(4) Be submitted as separate documents, not as inclosures or appendices
to other documents such as pre-authorization survey reports or design mem-
oranda. However, statements will bring together and summarize the various
findings of other documents witli respect to environmental considerations.
-------
m
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
(j) Not be used to resolve conflicts or to present unsupported
conclusions, but should demonstrate that the Corps has fully considered
the potential impact of the proposal upon the environment. The state-
ment will summarize information and cite sources of overall appraisals
and responsible judgments of complex environ::..ental matters and inter-
relationships (e.g., water quality by EPA, fish and wildlife resources
by BSF&WL or other authoritative sources).
(6) Contain objective analyses and normally avoid the use of
project cost figures but should include approximate monetary or other
cost comparisons of alternatives which illustrate different environmental
impacts and economic or social trade-offs necessar'y to achieve environ-
mental objectives.
(7) Summarize comments and/or recommendations of an environmental
nature by appropriate Governmental agencies.
(8) Summarize formal views and reconrr.endations received from organi-
zations and individuals with an environmental resource interest. Presenta-
tion will be in a subsection under "Coordination With Others."
(9) Be reviewed by District Counsel to assure legal responsiveness
to the Act.
(10) Be prepared in simple and concise terms with the understanding
that they are - or will be - public documents and may receive broad'
exposure in the news media and careful public scrutiny. Where the use of
technical terms is necessary, they should be adequately defined. Length
would depend upon the nature of the impacts and the environmental setting
of a particular proposal.
(11) Contain the comments of the Environmental Protection Agency with
respect to water quality aspects of the proposed action, which have been
previously certified by the appropriate state or interstate organization
as being in substantial compliance with applicable water quality stand-
ards .
(12) Contain a description of the proposed action including informa-
tion and technical data adequate to permit a careful assessment of
environmental impacts by commenting agencies. Project maps will be
included.
b. Planning Relationships.
(1) In the development of new projects or proposals, environmental
considerations will be integrated into the planning process from the
beginning. Preliminary identification and assessment of possible
-------
ER 1105-2-507
;>.8 May 71
environmental impacts and effects will be made and fully discussed at early
stages in the study. Consultation and coordination with Federal, state and
local agencies which have jurisdiction by lav; or special expertise and the
interested public with respect to the environmental impacts involved will
be started as soon as those impacts are tentatively identified and will
continue throughout the planning process. Reporting officers will insure
that such consultation has been sufficient to identify all significant
impacts prior to circulation of environmental statements, including prelimi-
nary drafts.
(2) On projects which were recommended, authorized or under construc-
tion prior to the National Environmental Policy Act of L969, the opportunity
to study and evaluate a full range of alternatives may be more limited.
However, to the maximum extent feasible, alternative solutions and oppor-
tunities for environmental enhancement, preservation, restoration, and
mitigation will be investigated prior to preparation of the statement.
Regardless of the level at which formal coordination is to take place,
reporting officers will carefully examine and evaluate the environmental
impact of all reasonable alternatives in coordination with appropriate Fed-
eral, state and local agencies and the public prior to preparing a recomme.n-
dation or an environmental statement, whether preliminary draft, draft or
final.
8. Pub 1 ic Pa_r ti dp at. ion .
a- Policy. Public participation will be incorporated into the conduct
of the Corps water resources program and must be viewed as an integral part
of the planning process. Public participation is a continuous two-way
communication process which involves: keeping the public fully informed
about the status and progress of studies and findings of plan formulation
and evaluation activities; and actively soliciting from all concerned
citizens their opinions and perceptions of objectives and needs, and their
preferences regarding resources use and alternative development or manage-
ment strategies, and any other information and assistance relevant to plan,
formulation and evaluation. Specific guidance on the implementation of
public participation is being developed.
b. Pre-authorization Project Studies. In each project study, all
possible means (formal and informal) will be emphasized to establish and
maintain effective two-way communications with interested citizens and
conservation and environmental groups. Public meetings, informal meetings
and workshops with the project area and the use of news media are means to
develop this free-flowing dialog to assist in the identification of the
environmental concerns and develop appropriate measures within the proposed
plan to mitigate, eliminate, or reduce environmental impacts. Unresolved
environmental conflicts must be clearly set forth with a full and complete
8
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
discussion of both sides of the issue. The general public and partici-
pating conservation environmental groups should be kept fully and
continuously informed about impacts and be provided with opportunities
to make inputs .
(1; During the second public meeting or formulation stage meeting,
all anticipated environmental impacts and effects of each solution under
consideration will be identified and discussed. There will be prepared
an environmental information section or inclosure to the public meeting
announcement in order to generate meaningful and thorough discussion
during the meeting. Views of interested citizens and conservation and
environmental groups will be sought and considered.
(2) A preliminary draft environmental statement will be prepared
for the third or late stage public meeting and will be summarized in the
Notice of Public Meeting and with reference to how copies may be obtained,
The environmental discussion regarding the proposal and alternatives will
be specific and thorough regarding the environmental impacts and effects.
Views of interested citizens and conservation and environmental groups
will be sought and considered.
c. !L[l£J^Liiil!ill!L^JLcL^ Public participation will
be developed for post-authorization planning studies whenever there are
substantive changes from the authorized plan.
d. Publi c Rcviev.1 . During the review of the environmental state-
ment by Federal, state and local agencies, copies of the preliminary
draft and draft statement will be. made available to groups which actively
participated in the study, to citizen and conservation and environmental
groups with known interests in the environmental considerations of the
project, and in response to requests from the general public. To insure
public awareness during this process, action offices will prepare and
publish a news release on the proposed action, stating that a copy of
the preliminary draft or draft environmental statement has been prepared
and is available upon request. This news release should be given as
wide a coverage as deemed sufficient to accomplish the. purpose of this
directive and the intent of paragraph 6a(vii) and 10 of the "Guidelines"
of the CEQ. When significant environmental impacts or public concern
have become apparent subsequent to the last public meeting, reporting
officers will notify the Division Engineer of the facts and issues
involved and request a decision as to whether a public meeting should be
held prior to or during coordination of the statement.
9. Coord ijifLlLiSIl' Ex j sting coordination procedures will be utilized in
obtaining the views of Federal, state and local agencies to the maximum
extent practicable concerning the review of preliminary draft and draft
environmental s tatements .
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
a, Time Li iv.i ts . Reporting officers should establish time li.mi. ts of
not less than 45 days for reply, after which it n.ay be presumed, unless the
agency requests a specific extension of time, that the agency consulted has
no comment to make. In excep t i.onal cases, where time is a very critical
factor, time limits of 30 clays may be established. To the fullest extent
possible, no administrative action will be. taken, regarding the proposal,
sooner than 90 days after a draft environmental statement has been circu-
lated for comment;, or sooner than 30 days after a final environmental
statement has been made available to CEQ.
b . Federal Agencies ,
(1) Appendix 2. CEQ "Guidelines" will be used to determine the Federal
agenci.es with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to whom the statement
is to be sent for comment on the environme.nta ] impacts.
(2) Section 8 of CEQ Guidelines, reference d, requires that, in addi-
tion to normal coordination procedures, the following rules apply to coordi-
nation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
(a) Comments of the Administrator or his designated representative will
accompany each final statement on matters related to air or water quality,
noise- control, solid waste disposal.., radiation criteria and standards, or
other provisions of the. authority of EPA'.
(b) Copies of basic proposals (studies, proposed legislation, rules,
leases, permits, etc.) will be furnished t.o EPA with each statement. For
actions for 'which statements are not being prepared but which involve the
authority of EPA, EPA will be. informed that no statement, will be prepared
and that comments are recjuested on the proposal.
(c ) A period of 45 days, will be allowed for EPA review of statements
and/or proposals;- however, it will be presumed that the agency has no com-
ments to make only when the impacts or matters related to the authorities of
EPA are minor or the agency has indicated that it does not. desire to. comment.
c. State and Local Agenc i_e_s_. Coordination of the environmental
statement with state and local agencies authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards may be obtained directly with the agencies and with
the appropriate state, regional or metropolitan clearingliou.se unless the
Governor has designated some other point for obtaining this review. For
additional guidance see ER 1120-2-112, "Coordination of Investigations and
Reports with Clearinghouses."
10. • AyjnJ^iubnjJ^^^^ Draft and final environmental
statements including comments received during review will be made available
to the public to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with para-
graph 8 of tin's regulation, Section l'.(b) of Executive Order 11514 , . "Protec-
tion and Enhancement of Environmental Quality," paragraph 10 of the CEQ
"Guidelines" and the. following:
10
-------
Ell 1105-2-507
28 May 71
_a" PJlflJL^Jillliil^ The District Engineer will
furnish copies of 'draft environmental staLcr.K~.nts in response to requests
from the public and will furnish public information file copies to the
Division office and the appropriate state, regional and metropolitan
clearinghouses. Copies will also be on file in the Office of the Chief
of Engineers .
b* ^l!IiLLA1IYljJ2IlI]IGJ['LaL ?!-l: '"-' "y'n ts , i'U'.: the final environmental
statement has been filed wi lli "ciX) " ;i"^ ...... DU. . •• , ; ;- : ,.• • i ,,,:,,- ,••''•„ furnish
copies, including comments, in response Co 1.041-.',. y i.: •.-, Liuo public and
furnish on an expedited basis, public in forma tiun file copies to the
appropriate state, regional and metropolitan clearinghouses, Information
copies will also be provided to all Federal, state, and Local agencies'
and conservation/environmental groups with which the statement was
coordinated. This is to enable the public or Government agency to comment
on the final statement to CEQ if they so desire, within the 30 day period
prior to the administrative actions being taken. Copies will also be on
file in the Office of the Chief of Engineers,
c. ^iSlZ£-£_9.1_C^lE2i£l.' In order to comply with paragraph 10(b) of
CEQ "Guidelines" reporting officers will provide 30 copies of all draft
environmantal statements to OCE at the time formal coordination with
responsible Federal, state and local agencies is initialed. When signifi-
cant or controversial environmental issues are raised during the draft
review process, 20 copies of the letters discussing the issues will be
furnished OCE for transmittal to CEQ in advance of furnishing the final
coordinated environmental statement. Thirty copies of the final coordi
nated statement will be furnished OCE for further processing to CEQ.
OCE will notify Division and District Engineers when final statements
are filed and will provide each with copies of the filed. final statement.
11. Prepare tion and Process ing . Statements will be prepared by the
officer initially preparing the recommendation or report (normally the
District Engineer). The. initiating officer is recognized as the
responsible Federal official within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of
PL 91-190, except for such changes as reviewing authorities may deem
necessary in the original proposal and covering statement, to be consis-
tent with the policies of the Secretary of the Army. Agency comments
and the views expressed should be directed at the environmental impacts
and should be no older than 12 months for new proposals nor older than
three calendar years for previously authorized projects. More recent
coordination will be required if significant changes in the proposal or
in the associated environment have occurred in the meantime.
a» gm^vey Repo r ts .
(1) An a£sc_s_s me n t of the environmental resources in the project area
will be prepared by the environmental planners and presented at the
11
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
Checkpoint I Conference. This assessment will be based on the results of
the environmental inventory (App. C, para 2 and 3) and will be the contin-
uing reference document for the environmental planning in the survey report
and the preparation of the environmental statement.
(2) The environmental assessment and an analysis of probable
environmental impacts of the considered project alternatives will be pre-
sented at the formulation stage public meeting. The environmental presenta-
tion at this meeting will be made in a way that will: (a) lead to public
understanding of the environmental setting in the proposed project area,
and the environmental trade-offs under consideration; (b) be deserving of
confidence that Corps planning is environmentally knowledgeable and
responsive; and (c) obtain the reviews and comments of interested citizen
and conservation and environmental groups.
(3) A preliminary draft statement (PDS) will' be prepared before the
late stage public meeting. The PDS will objectively present the anticipated
impacts of the selecled plan which may be recommended, but'Will also present
in clear and concise terms the probable impacts of alternative plans con-
sidered during the study.
(4) The PDS , perhaps revised after the final public meeting, will be
circulated to the agencies noted in paragraph 9, Coordination, for review
and comment. The review period will be not less than thirty days, If any
agency does not respond within the time specified, a comment to that effect
will be included in the attached coordination letters section. ,,Copies of
the PDS will be furnished to groups which actively participated in the study,
to citizen and conservation and environmental groups with known interests
in the environmental considerations of the project. At the time of the
circulation of the PD_S for field level review the District Engineer will
prepare and issue a news release stating that a copy of the preliminary
draft environmental statement may be obtained from the District Engineer.
(5) After the return of field level review comments the. District will
prepare a final version of the PDS and this statement will accompany the
District Report to the Division Engineer. Review comments of all agencies
together with a summary of comments received from the public, will be
attached to the PDS.
(6) The Division Engineer will give appropriate coverage to the PDS
in the PUBLIC NOTICE and will review and comment on the PDS when he submits
his report and statement to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
(BERH).
(7) BERH will review the jgDja at ttie time it reviews the project report.
BERH will note in the Board Report that it lias reviewed the PDS of a certain
12
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
data and has considered the impacts discussed die re in when developing
the Views, and ^£o^nejid£t2_oiis contained in the Board Report.
(8) After the review of the PD_S at BERii and by OCE elements, the
PDS. will be converted into the dra'ft statement at OGE. The draft stat.e-
I2SJlt wil1 be circulated for review and cony.ient to the appropriate stare
or states and tihe affected Federal agencies at the Washington level and
known interested citizen, conservation and environmental groups and
response to requests from the general public. The draft statement,
together with all field level coordination comments, the" Chic j. of
Engineers Report, and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
Report will be provided CEQ by OCE at this time. The review period will
be ninety days. The Public Affairs Office, OCE, will prepare and issue
a news release stating that a copy of the draft environmental statement
is available from the Office of the Chief of Engineers. Copies of the
draft environmental statemc-nt will be furnished the Division and District
Engineers. District Engineers will provide public information file
copies to -the appropriate state, regional and metropolitan clearinghouses.
(9) After termination of the review period the f i nal environmental
statement , incorporating all ccrrur.ents received, will be prepared at OCE
in consultation with field offices and accompany the Chief !s Report, on
the project to Office, Secretary of Army (OSA) for transmittal to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
(10) After receipt of the OMS comments, OSA will transmit the final
environmen tal s ta ten-sent to CEQ and Congress together with the project
report. The Public Affairs Office, OCE, wil] prepare and- issue a news
release stating that a f i nal e :i v i r o r. me n t a 1 s t a f. e ne n t has been filed with
CEQ and a copy is available from the Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Mention in this news release should be made that copies are available at
the Division -and District Engineers ' offices.
(12) Copies of final cr.vi rrr.r.en tal statement wi^.1 be furnished the
agencies and organizations with whom the draft environmental statement
was coordinated. Copies of the final environmental statement will be
furnished the. Division and District. Engineers. District Engineers will
provide public information copies to the appropriate state, regional
and metropolitan clearinghouses.
b. Special Project's and Continuing Authorities. It is contemplated
that all required consul. La t ion with Federal, state and local agencies, and
the public concerning the environmental aspects will be accomplished at
field level by District Engineers without further referral to any of these
agencies by the Chief of Engineers.
n) An assessment of the environmental resources in the project
area will be prepared by the environmental planners and will be the
13
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
continuing-reference document for the environmental planning in the project
report and the preparation of the environmental statement.
(2) A draft statement will be prepared before the public meeting.
The draft statement will objectively present the anticipated impacts of the
selected plan which may be recommended but will also present in clear and
concise terms the probable impacts of alternative plans considered during
the study. The content of the draft statement will 'be summarized in the
Notice of Public Meeting and discussed at the meeting.
(3) The draft statement, revised as applicable, after the public
meeting, together with draft report, will be forwarded to OCE through the
Division Engineer for concurrence of proposed action prior to coordination
of report and statement.
(4) Appropriate comments on the report and draft statement will be
made by OCE and the District Engineer requested to make the appropriate
changes.
(5) After the changes in the report and draft statement are made, the
District Engineer will circulate the draft statement for formal review and
comment,to appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, clearinghouses
and known interested citizen, conservation and environmental groups and
response to requests from the general public. Thirty copies of the draft
statement will be furnished OCE for transmittal to CEQ". The review period
may be as short as 30 days except 45 days will be allowed for EPA comment.
This coordination starts the 90 day period before the administrative action
can be taken. At the same time the District Engineer will prepare and
issue a news release stating that a copy of the draft environmental state-
ment may be obtained from the District Engineer.
(6) After other agency review comments and comments of the interested
public are received, the District will prepare the final environmental
statement, and attach copies, of all comments received. Thirty copies of the
final environmental statement will be sent to the Division Engineer for
further action.
(7) The Division Engineer will review and comment on the final
environmental statement when he submits the report and statement to OCE.
(8) OCE will review and have revised the final environmental statement
where necessary. Office, Secretary of Army will transmit the final environ-
mental statement to the CEQ. This action will start the 30 day period
before the action can be taken. The Public Affairs Office, OCE, will prepare
and issue a news release stating that a final environmental statement has
been filed with CEQ and a copy is available from the Office, Chief of
Engineers and District Engineer.
14
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 1971
(9) Copies of the. final cnvii-on.nient-.al statement will be furnished'
the Division and District Engineers. District Engineers will furnish
copies of the final environmental statement to the agencies and organi-
ations with whom the draft environmental statement was coordinated.
District Engineers will also provide public information copies to the
appropriate state, regional and metropolitan clearing houses.
c- Authorized Projects KM: Started. It is contemplated that all
required consultation with Federal, state and local agencies and the
public concerning the environmental aspects will be accomplished at field
level by District Engineers without further referral to any of these
agencies by the Chief of Engineers. See paragraph 8, Public Participa-
tion, for guidance on holding public meetings in connection with prepara-
tion of statements for authorized projects.
(1) Prior to submittal of the General Design Memorandum, the District
Engineer will update the environmental statement prepared when the project
was authorized or prepare one if none lias been prepared. For projects for
which statements are required (Paragraph 5, Age n c y Ac _t i o ns Requ ir ing
Env J roru-.c nta 1 S ta ternents ) and for which the GDM has been previously sub-
mitted, draft statements will be prepared as soon as possible. Prepara-
tion should be started at least nine months prior to the proposed action
for which the statement is required in order to allow time for consulta-
tion with appropriate agencies prior to preparing the draft, preparation
of the draft, and processing as indicated in the following sub-paragraphs.
(2) The updated statement or.new draft will be circulated for formal
review and coironent to the appropriate Federal, state and local agenci.es,
clearinghouses, and known interested citizen, conservation and.environmental
groups and response to requests from the general public. Thirty copies of
the draft statement will be furnished OCE for transmittal to CEQ. This
review period may in exceptional cases be as short as 30 days, except that
45 days will V allowed for EPA comments. This coordination starts tiie
90 day perioc before the administrative action can be taken.. At the same
time, the District Engineer will issue a news release stating that a copy
of the draft environmental statement may be obtained from the District
Engineer.
(3) After other agency review comments and comments of the interested
public are received, the District will prepare the final environmental
statement and attach copies of all comments received. Thirty copies of
the final environmental statement will be sent to the Division Engineer
for further action.
(4) The Division Engineer will review and comment on the final
environmental statement when he submits the GDM (if appropriate) and
statement to OCE.
15
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 1971
(5) OCE will review and revise the final environmental statement
where necessary. Office, Secretary of Army will transmit the final environ-
mental statement to the CEQ . This action will start the 30 day period before
the administrative action can be taken. The Public Affairs Office, OCE, will
prepare and issue a news release stating that a final environmental statement
has been filed with CEQ and a copy is available from the Office, Chief of
Engineers and the District Engineer.
(6) Copies of the final environmental statement will be furnished the
Division and District Engineers. District Engineers will furnish copies of
the final environmental statement to the agencies and organizations with
whom the draft environmental statement was coordinated. District Engineers
will also provide information copies to the appropriate state, regional and
metropolitan clearinghouses .
d. Operation and Maintenance and Co P. ti nuj.no; Construction. It is con-
templated that all required consultation with Federal, state and local
agencies, and the public concerning the environmental aspects will be
accomplished at field level by District Engineers^ without further referral
to any of these agencies by the Chief of Engineers.
(1) Paragraph 5e , page A, establishes the requirements for preparation
of environmental statements regarding Operation and Maintenance and Contin-
uing Construction projects. fl
(2) The updated statement or new draft will be circulated for formal
review and comment to the appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, • < •"
clearinghouses,, and known interested citizen, conservation _and environmental
groups and response to requests from the general public. Thirty copies of
the draft statement will be furnished OCE for transmittal to CEQ., This
review period may in exceptional cases be as short as 30 days, except that
45 days will be allowed for EPA comments. This coordinat io- starts the
90 day period before the administrative action can be taken At the same
time, the District Engineer will issue a news release stating that a copy
oil the draft environmental- statement may be obtained from the District
Engineer.
(3) After other agency review comments and comments of the interested
public are received, the District will prepare the final environmental
statement and attach copies of all comments received. Thirty copies of the
final environmental statement will be sent to the Division Engineer for
further action.
The Division Engineer will review and comment on the final environ-
mental statement when he submits the statement to OCE.
16
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
(5) OCE will review and revise the final environmental statement
where necessary. Office, Secretary of Army will- transmit the final
environmental to the CEQ. This action will start the 30 day period
before, the action can be taken. The Public Affairs Office, OCE, will
prepare and issue a news release stating that a final environmental
statement has been filed with CEQ and a copy is available from the
Office, Chief of Engineers and the District Engineer.
(6) Copies of the final environmental statement will be furnished
the Division and District Engineers. I)i s trie t 'Engineers will furnish
copies of the final environmental statement to the agencies and organiza-
tions with whom the draft environmental statement was coordinated.
District Engineers will also provide information copies to the appropriate
state, regional and metropolitan clearinghouses.
e. Permit Applications^. For permit actions on which statements
are required by paragraph 5f above, the preparation and coordination of
an environmental statement will be accomplished at field level.
(1) The District Engineer will require the applicant to furnish
information and an assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed
action.
(2) If a Public Hearing is required, an environmental assessment of
the proposed action will be included in the PUBLIC NOTICE of HEARING and
the environmental issues will be fully discussed by the applicant at the
hearing.
(3) The District Engineer will prepare a draft environmental state-
ment utilizing the information obtained from the various agencies and the
public in response to the original public notice, the information provided
by the applicant and the public hearing, if one was held.
(4) Tine draft statement will be circulated for formal review and
comment to the appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, and known
interested citizen, conservation and environmental groups and response
to requests from the general public. Thirty copies of the draft statement
will be furnished OCE for transniittal to CEQ. This review period may be
as short as 30 days, except that 45 days will be allowed for EPA comments,
This coordination starts the 90-day period before the administrative
action can be taken. At the same time the District Engineer will issue
a news release stating that a copy of the draft environmental statement-
may be obtained from the District Engineer.
(5) After other agency review comments and comments of the interested
public are received, the District will prepare the final environmental
statement and attach copies of all comments received. Thirty copies of
17
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 71
the final environments 1 statement together with the District Engineer's
report and re commend a tions on the application as required by ER 1145-2-303
will be transmitted to higher authority for further action.
(6) If higher authority decision is favorable to the application, the
Office, Secretary of Army will transmit the final environmental statement
to the CEQ at least 30 days prior to approval of the application. The Public
Affairs Office, OCE, will prepare and issue a news release stating that a
final environmental statement has been filed with CEQ and a copy is available
from the Office. Chief of Engineer? and the District Engineer. .
(7) Copies of the final environmental s ta tement' will be furnished the
Division and District Engineers. District Engineers will furnish copies of
the final environmental statement to the agencies an\l organizations with
whom the draft environmental sta ter.cn t was coordinated. District Engineers
will also provi.de information copies to the appropriate state, regional and
metropolitan clearing houses.
(8) If higher authority decision -is unfavorable to the application,
the application together with the reasons for denial will be returned to the
applicant. CEQ will be informed oL the denial and that a final environmental
statement will not be filed..
^ • -'^ ^- for Poi' t and Indus t^l]s s •< , -• Whe-n Dis tr i c t >
Engineers determine that surplus project property may be disposed of; for
development of public, port or indus trial . facilities is in the public interest,
he will prepare an environmental s t a tement,. to accompany ... his repor.t and
recommendation. It is contemplated that all required consultation with
Federal, state and local agencies, and the public concerning the environmental
aspects will be accomplished at field level by Distric t , Engineers without
further referral to any of these agencies by the Chief of Engineers.
(1) The District Engineer will prepare a draft environmental statement
utilizing information obtained from appropriate Federal, state and local
agencies and probably new owners. A public meeting may be used to obtain
information and views from the interested public. The statement will set
forth, among other things, what the new owner intends to develop on the
property and the possible uses to be made of it. Also, state what con-
straints will be placed on the owner, such as reversionary clause, uses,
need 'for permits for structures or discharges into navigable waters.
(2) The draft statement will be circulated for formal review and com-
ment to the appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, and known interested
citizen, conservation and environmental groups and response to requests from
the general public. Thirty copies of the. draft statement will be furnished
OCE for transmittal to the CEQ. This review period may be as short as 30
days, except that 45 days will be allowed for EPA comments. This coordination
18
-------
ER 1105-2-507
29 May 71
starts the 90-day period before the administrative action can be taken.
At the -same time, the District Engineer will issue a news release stating
that a copy of the draft environmental statement may be obtained from the
District Engineer.
(3) After other agency review comments and comments of the interested
public are received, the District will prepare the final environmental
statement and attach copies of all comments received, Thirty copies of
the final environmental statement together with the District Engineer's
report and recommendations, as required by ER 405-1-909, will be trans-
mitted to higher authority for further action.
(4) If higher authority decision is favorable to the request for
disposal of project lands, the Office, Secretary of Army will transmit
the final environmental statement to the CEQ at least 30 days prior to the
issuance of the Public Notice of Disposal as required by paragraph 32c(2)
of ER 405-1-909. The Public Affairs Office, OCE, will prepare and issue
a news release stating that a final environmental statement has been filed
with the CEQ and a copy is available from the Office, Chief of Engineers
and the District Engineer.
(5) Copies of the final environmental statement will be furnished
the Division and District Engineers. District Engineers will .furnish copies
of the final environmental statement to the agencies and organizations
with whom the draft environmental statement was coordinated. District
Engineers will1 also provide information copies to the appropriate state,
regional and metropolitan clearinghouses.
(6) If higher authority decision is unfavorable to the request,
the CEQ will be informed of the denial and that a final environmental
statement will not be filed.
19
-------
ER '1105-2-507
28 May 71
12,, 7.inpli-'.nent3_t ion. Officers in charge of elements described in paragraph.
2 above, will modify phuinin^ and other, procedures to insure, compliance and
implementation in a timely manner.
FOR THE CllIEi}' OF ENGINEERS:
RICHARD F, Me AD 00
Colonel^ Corps of Engineers
Executive
"'
App A - Executive Order 1151^, "f'rc Lection
and Enli;;r:cer.,|^nt of jinvii'onrneiiLa 1
Quality," Ma::ch 5. 1970 (35 F. R, ^-247, March 7, 1970)
Apt) B " "Guidel i.r.t.s ior Sta teiuencs on Proposed
Federal Action.0, Affecting i:he Envlrornnant. , "
Council on )i.nvi;:on'.i:er] ta 1 Quality
(36 F.iU ll'Lk . April. 23, 197J )
App G •• Prep.-'.rai.ion of Eviviror.'i^n'.'.nl Sfa ternents
App 1.) - Foriiv.'. t. Saiviples on j'Cnvironrn-ancn i. Statements
App E - F'low C ! ) a r I'. o on Chronoioc'.y --Regarding
1-rcparis cion ai'id C.'oorclii'iu' ion of Environments 1
S ca.tciiKin r.s (Tu be furnished iar.er.)
20
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP A
28 May 71
APPENDIX A
Executive Order n.~>M, Protection1 and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality, March 3, l'J70
1'y vimie of the authority \v-1cd in me, as President of thr United
Slafe> and in i'n rl hei ance of ihe purpo-e am! policy of the National
Fn\ ironmental Policy Ac! of I'.iC,!) ( Public. Law No. 91 - I'.i'), approved
January J, If)?')), ii i-ordered a.-, folhrus:
Sj:cri"x 1, I'n'ii ij. 'i'lic Federal (jo\vrnment shall 'provide leader-
ship in protecting and enhancing (lie <]uaiitv of the Nation's environ-
ment to sustain and enrich human life. Federal agencies -hall initiate
mea.-tires needed to direct then policies, plans and- programs so as
to meet national environmental ^oals. The Council on Knviromnontnl
Quality, through the Chairman, -hall ad\ IM'> and assist the President
in leading I hi.-, n.il lonal effort.
Six. \L. lic.f/iiii'.^iliili'if.-- ni ]-'i I/I-IM! niji'iii !/'•>. Consonant will) Title
I of (lie National Fn viroinneni a 1 Policy Act of !!)('>!), hereinafter re-
ferred lo as the "Act", the heads of Federal agencies shall:
(a) Monitor, e\aluale. and conliol on a continuing basis their
agencies' adivilie< M; a- to protect and enhance I he cjiialiiy of the en-
vironment. Such aciivilie- shall include iho.-e directed to controlling
poll iu ioi i aiid i'n hancing the en vn on men I and t iio-e desig ned lo a ceo in-
plish ot her program object i\ cs v. nich m:i v a ll'cct t he qua III \ of the. en-
\''i'(iniiie:il Agencies shall de.eiop progiams and measure.-^ to protect.
and enhance environmental ijualitv and shall a
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP A
28 May 71
(h) I.V-vtOop provdnres to ensure the fullest, pr.vticable provision
of timelv public in format ion and understanding: cedu; c> shall include, whenever appro-
priate, provision for public hearing-, and shall provide I lie. public \vilh
relevant informal ion, mcludiu.ij; informal ion on alternative courses of
action. Federal agencies shall aKo encourage Stale and local agencies
to adopt similar proceduies Cor informing Hie public concerin^ (hoir
(ic.tivitifs uli'ec! in;j; the. ([iialily of tbr- environment.
(c) Injure that information rep.irdii'i^; e.xistii!^ or potential cnviron-
incntsil 5>nib!(Mns and control methods develojxul a? part of research,
develoi'jnu'iit, demon^i rat ion, (c.-'t, fi- p.valuation ;i'-'.ivilies is made
availriblo to Federal a/^'ncies. Stale.-, counties, municipalities, institu-
tions, and oilier enl il ies, as appropriate.
(d) Jxovu'.w (heir a^em-ies' statntorv authority, adininisirative. reg-
ulations, policies, and procedures, including tho-e relating to loans,
{/rants, c.on.'racl.-', lcav-c>, li'-en-'es. or jK'ninls, in osder to identify any
dclicic.ncios i,r incon-isiciicic.- ;!iere';!i \vliidi pi-ohii.-i: or limit full eorn-
plianre, \\itli Hie jiurpfi-es and piovi-'ions of the A.1'. A rt'.port on this
review and Hie coi'reclivo actions taken oi1 jilajined, iiiclistliiifr such
measures to U- projiosed to the President, as may !<.• nece^ary to brinp;
their an' liorily and policies iint<» con forniinicx1 with (he, j^l^pf, pur-
poses, and pro.'f'dtn es of Hie Act, shall be. provided, to the. (Jouncij on
Kn\' icon menial < Duality nut l:iii'r I ban September I > l!l"0.
(<') Ksi^a;,'c in e\i-han<.re of data and research re.-nlis, and cooperate.
witli a;reiii'ir- of ul her ;.' f osier I he pui' poses of (he. Act,.
(I) Proceed, in coordination v/itli other agencies, willi actions re.-
(juiri'd by sect inn !u-j of I he Act.
Six.'. II. /fi \ii(>ii.^ili/Hl/< •.•. nf {',/i/itf!/ on. JCw nlrcHntfii/it (J until)/, The
(!onncil on !''M\'irui:mental (quality .shall:
(a) Hvaluale exisiin^r and prnpo.-vd policies and activities of the
Federal (iovermneni directed in the i-untrol of p'liimion and the en-
hancement nf Hie en\ irnnmen: and In the accomplishment of oilier
object ivc-s which alleci ihe i|iiality of the environment, '['his shall in-
clude continuing revie\\ nl' procedures employed in I he development
and enforcement of Federal standards alicci'm^ environmental
quality, llased upon .such evaluations the Coiiiuii shall, wliere. ap-
pro|ii'ia!e, I'ec^mmeiiil '.
-------
ER 1105-2-507
API' A
28 May 71
(I) Kccommend In (he IVoidenl ;,,,<] ,,, H1(, :,,rt,n,.ios pnoritie.s
ainon«: programs denned f,,,. ,ju. ,.,„,(,.,,] ()f p(,lh,iion ,,,,) f()1. ,,„ .
ham-fluent of 11M. environment.
(••) Determine (In- need fi.r new polieie- :m|>r<,pnnlr, .public hearings
or conferences on issues of environ menial si<_rnili<-;u\ee.
(e) Promote (he development and use of indices and monitoring
systems (1) lo assess environmental coiidilions ami I rends, (2) lo
predict the environmental inipad of ]iro|iosed public and private.
actions, and ('.',) to detenuine I he eilVct i\ eness (){ program.-, of jiroloct-
in related to environment al qualit}'.
(p) Aclvisi^ and assisi (lie 1'ivsident and ihe agencies in achieving
intornnlional cooperation for dealiiiir with environmental problems,
under the foreign po!;cy guidance of the Secretarv of Slate.
(li) Issue lo«rji^ thfreon, and (ni) means of
preventing or i-edncinjr adver-i- cli.'ri- from Mich teclinoio;r!e--.
Si:c -.1. Ann-mi-." nix "f /'.'. ''•'- //,'/-'. l'/.\eeutive ()rd''f Xo. ll-fT'J of
May 2i». IIIO!.'. inrlnd in«z I lie heading tlieieof. i> hereby amended:
(1) \\\ siil'.~i it iiliny lor i he term "the Knvironmenlal Quality
Council", wheiever it oi-,-iir-. the following: "the ('abinet Com-
mit fee on the Knvironment .
(2) J?v sub-i itut in;,' for the term "the Council", wherever it
occni's, I lie 1'illou in<_:: "I he < abinct ('ommil tee".
(:$) )5v inserting in -iib.-eci ion (fi of section 101, after
"]-Jucl^ct,", lli" following: "the j;in-clor of the Ollice of Science
and 'IVchnoloay.'.
(4) J$v siib^t il\it m;,r foi subsection ([:) "f .section 101 (he.
following :
A-3
-------
ER U05-2-507
APP A
28 May 71
"(tf) The Chairman of the found! on Environment;)] Quality
(established by Public Law OJ-]!'!)) .-hall assist, (lie President in
dircoti::lishe(i ity i'tiiilic l>a\v !-!-]!)())".
(7) Hy siib.sl itut in;_'; for " (nrr.cinai'U'f referred 10 as (lie 'Com-
mitlct'.')'', in st'ciiii.'i ^(U, the following: "horeinaftef1 referred to
as (it'.1 'Citizens' (Vininii;('.-;•')".
(H) By sub.1:! i( nt inn; for jhc (orni "tbo. Coin mil tee", wherever it
or.ours, i hi1, following : "t ho. Cii i/.t'iis' Coininil (C(j'\
RICHARD NIXON.
ifl "\Vnr/T,
(F.R. Doc. 70-2861; Filed, Mar. 5, 1970; 2:29 p.m.)
(35 F.R. 4247, Murch 7,. 1970)
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
ER 1105-2-507
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 28 Ma>7 71
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL. QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACC . N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006
APR 23 1371
MEMORANDUM TO THE HEADS OF AGENCIES
RE: Revised CEQ Guidelines on Environmental Impact
Statements Prepared under Section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act
Attached are the Council's Revised Guidelines on
environmental impact statements prepared under Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act as
published in the Federal Register. Also included (see
section 8) are the Environmental Protection Agency's
interim procedures under Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act which requires review and public comment by EPA on
certain proposed legislation and agency actions and
regulations affecting EP •-' s areas of responsibility
(air quality, water quality, solid waste, pesticides,
radiation standards, noise).
The revisions in CEQ's guidelines apply to pro-
posed agency actions for which draft environmental
statements are circulated after June 30, 1971.
are requested to -update their procedures JL
environmental statement5; to take account of the__re vised
CEQ guidelines prior ro July 1. These updated agency
procedures should be made available to the Council for
.consultation prior to formal issuance (Attention:
General Counsel). The Council will invite the partic-
ipation of OMB and EPA in this consultation.
In updating your Agency's procedures, your atten-
tion is directed in particular to the following:
(Section 3)
Agency procedures should provide guidance in
identifying:
B-l
-------
KU 1105-2-507
AD? /3
28 Myy 71
— tVjcso typ<=?!:; of agency action,*?. requiring
er/.v ir cranon t :i 1 s t < •; t or, cuts
"- the apprc-prlcite time prior to decision for
the j.ntera^ency consultations required by
Sue. 102 (x} (C)
-<•- the agency " review process" for which the
final environmental statement and comments
;?.xe to xx; available.
Agency procedures should assure -that advance comment
from the Ei>\.Tirci:rae;:.tal Projection Agency is requested on
proposed legislation,, regulations, new construction proj-
octB and ro.ctjor EiCtions ^.igaif icantly affecting the envi-
roi:.iT.-a-.-;t in th-::. arft^.s; of EPA's jurisdiction (i.e. air and.
watoo: ujality., •solid waste, pesticides, radiation standards,
r:.o.lne) {.Soft .vectioi?. 2) .
(::eo':.xon G)
?;;.] ^nvirc-nvieLjt'al statements inust include an ade-
au^.tc: 6.:r-'.;;cr.'! p^j.on of rhe proposed action to permit a
crarc ;?ul :.>s.;..^-sraerit by oonuaentin
(l.l) The cotan'.or.'t of EPA en water quality aspects
oiioix/.-u r.? re.que.v tea :in additJc-ri t.o any Stata or inter-
state cert if.; -''a^ion on tihics .aspect uride'r Section 21 (b)
of '.-.he F-:v.?.:;ral "Cat^r Pollution Control Act.
Age/i-i.y or cc'r-dv; •;--.; ;3 \/ii 1 need to take account of re-
q^irem-.'.:tG for obtaining El/A cciitment under Section 309
of the "Cle:vn Air Act, as c'.mended. Where an aqency is
riling ..a envircr..!.;ient.:*.l' statement v/hich v;ill be referred
to i-;P?. for c -I'liiien-t , no change, is required.. In the case
of propped legislation or regulat-iorio where the matter
af;:er't.y t'ie ?.irv.3.y of EPA'B jurisdiction and no environ-
ir.w.f--. 1 scatome.ot :ls ;;oing to be fil^d, such matters now
)?>V! Rt ?'-e referred to EPA for comment,
Agency proc^dur^ miAr^. ^visaro vuat, to the maximum
t, practical] -.• f L'-'e tti.-'.^.imvivi SO day and 30 day periods
B-2
-------
P:R 1105-2-507
" APP B
28 May 71
of public availability for draft and final environmental
statements on adnunistrativc actions arc observed. As
noted, these periods may overlap. Agency procedures
should also respond to the requirement that they "insure
the fullest practicable provision of timely public in-
formation ;;nd understanding of Federal plans and programs
with environmental impact in order to obtain the views of
interested parties." These procedures should include,
where appropriate, provision for public hearings and
availability of draft environmental impact statements
in advance of such hearings. Updated agency procedures
must also facilitate. public access to draft and final
environmental statements and the comments received.
Recent lower court decisions involving the National
Environmental Policy Act (e.g. EDF v. Cprp.s of Engineers,
D. Ark., LR-70-C-203, 1971; EDF v. Hard in, D., D.C.,
CA 2319-70, 1971) indicate courts will require an adequate
compliance with Section 102(2)(C) and that this process
envisions
. . .that program roririulSL-ion \vio_j_ be
e
by research results rather than, that research
programs will be designed to substantiate
programs already decided upon... The [environ-
mental] statement must be sufficiently detailed
to allow a responsible executive to arrive at
a reasonably accurate decision regarding the
environmental benefits and detriments to be
expected from program implementation. The
statement should contain adequate discussion
of alternative proposals to allow for program
modification during agency review so that
results to be achieved will be in accordance
with national environmental goals.
Although the Supreme Court has not yet' construed the
Act, there is ample evidence in its treatment of Section 4(f)
Of the Department of Transportation Act in the Over ton Park*
case that it also will enforce compliance with the necessary
procedural requirements.
c.i tizcnsJ:o_Pre serve pvcrton Pa.rk v . ___ Vo3pe, 1 ELR 20110
~~
B-3
-------
ER 1105-2-507
f^PP B
28 May 71
- 4 -
Wo invite the earliest possible adjustment of your
agency's environmental statement procedures to reflect
the new requirements in the Council's guidelines and
the rigor expected by Congress, the courts and the public
in our implementation of the National Environmental Policy
Act,
C 1 airman
Attachment
B-4
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP B
28 May 71
A
Si
J) If TV
\- FVi
VOLUME 36
Friday, April 23, 1971
NUMBER 79
Washington, D.C.
PART II
COL"
ENVIR
QUALITY
•P&.
C.r>\v
STATEMENTS ON PROPOSED
FEDERAL ACTIONS AFFECTING
THE ENVIRONMENT
GUIDELINES
^.^:-"-'-'.-.--->slJ^-'Vvii>\>^
;%'?v- -y^^:^-,-^f
'•.-'-•l-Vi
' r *•' V'
.. '^:'-^-;-N: ji
-;. - *.:r:--\n \ 'v
^'^.l:;.--,.'..v^U;
^^i^"T"'^T?^
L-C'Vi-' AVV-," .-. .' -.; ; -.' I
"V^-te -'^r;-? ••.^-"-rr
-------
B-6-
an
Uiv
STATP.f.-A'NYS ON H OPOSGD FEDFSAL
ACTIONS Al"Fr:O'!NG THE EN-
VIFtONMLNT
Guidelines
1. Purpose. This memorandum. pro-
vides guidelines t.o 1'Ydrval department^,
agencies, and eslabl:: "in'.ents for pre-
paring detailed environmental state-
ments on proposals for legislation and
other major Federal actions signifkan; ly
affecting (he quality oi the human en-
vironment as required by .section 102(2)
(C) of the National Eivoronrnrai.rU Pol-
icy Act (Public Law 91-190) (hereafter
"the Act"). Underl.vii!:; I be preparation
of suc'n environmental statements is the
mandate of both the. Act and Executive
Order 11514 (3!i F.R. o2.ro of March 4,
1970, that all Federal agencies, to the
fullest, extent possible, direct their poli-
cies, plans and piogtt.rnr. so as to murt
natio'nal environmer.Ki goals. T'ne ob-
jective of section 10.';CM(C) of tlie Act
and of these guidelines is to build into
the agency decision m;iking process an
appropriate and careful consideration of
the environmental asp^ct-s of propovd
action and to assist arrencics in imple-
menting n.ot only ihc letter, but the
spirit, of the Act. This memorandum also
provides guidance on implementation of
section 309 of the Ck-rm Air Act, as
amended <42 U.S.C. 1Mf>7 et seq.).
2. Pulir-./. As c:..r)y B- pjiMble end in
all cp-ses prior to ar/;ncy decision con-
cernin;/ major action or rccorjiinendPiion
or a favorable report on legislation that
significantly affects the. environment,
Federal agencies wjll, in consultation
with other appropriate Federal, Stale,
and local agenc'es, assess in detail the
potential environmental impact in order
that adverse effect.- a;e avoided, and
environmental quality is restored or en-
hanced, to the fullest f-xtcnt. practicable,
In particular, alternative actions that
will minimize adverse impact should be
explored and both the long- and short-
range implications to m&n, his physical
and social surrounding, and to nature,
should be evaluated in order to avoid
to the fullest extent practicable undesir-
able consequences for the environment.
3. Agency and OMK procedures, (a)
Pursuant to section 2(f> of Executive
Order 11514, the heads of Federal agen-
cies have been directed to proceed with
measures required by section 102(2) (C)
of the Act, Consequently, each agency
will establish, in consultation with the
Council on Environmental Quality, not
later than June 1, 1970 (and, by July 1,
1971, with respect to requirements im-
posed by revisions in these guidelines,
which will apply to draft environmental
statements circulated after June SO,
1971), its own formal procedures for (1)
identifying those agency actions re-
quiring environmental statements, the
appropiiate time prior to decision for the
consultations rcquiied by section 102
(2)(C), anci the agency review process
for which environment!.! shUnnc-nts me
to be availaM'1, (2) oMair.inR iiu'orm.-i-
tion rcquircu in their prcpaiviiori, i?.l
de.;ign;.'(mr. tlic olliciaio who arc to be
responsible for lln: s!:ilenie;u'-<. (•!) con-
sulting with and Inking account of the
comment1; of appropriate l'Vd''TPl, Slaie,
and ]o?iil agencies, iiicHicliiJi; obtaining
the comment of the- Arlmini:,; iv.tor
of the laivironmenta! Protection AKsney,
whether or not an em ironmonlal state-
ment is prepared, when required under
sec'ioii 309 of the Clean Ah Act, as
amended, and section i! of those guide-
lines, ar.d (5) meeting the requirement?
of section 2ib) of Executive Order li&14
for providinr; timely public infoimalion
on Federul plans and programs wi'.h en-
vironmental impact including procedure;
responsive to section 10 of these guide-
lines. These procedures should be con-
sonant with the guidelines contained
herein. Each agency should file seven
(7) copies of all such procedures with
the Council on Environmental Quality,
which will provide advice to agencies i.".
the preparation of their procedures and
guidance 0:1 the application and inter-
pretation of the Council's guidelines. The
Environmental Protection Agency will
•assist in resolving any question relating
to section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
(b) Each Federal agency should con-
sult, with the assistance of the Council
on Environmental Quality and the Of-
fice of Manrnjement anci Budget if de-
sired, with other appropriate Federal
agencies in 'he development of the
above prone dures so as to achieve con-
sistency in dealing with similar activi-
ties and to w..surs effective coordination
among agencies in their review of pro-
posed activities.
(c) State and local review of agency
procedures, regulations, and policies for
the administration of Federal programs.
of assistance to State and local govern-
ments will be conducted pursuant to
procedures established by the Office of
Management and Budget Circular No.
A-85. For agency procedures subject to
OMB Circular No. A-85 a 30-day exten-
sion in the July 1, 1971, deadline set in
section 3(a) is granted.
(d) It is imperative that existing
mechanisms for obtaining the views of
Federal, Stale, and local agencies on
proposed Federal actions be utilized to
the extent practicable in deo,ling with
environmental matters. The Office of
Management and Budget will issue in-
structions, as necessary, to take full
advantage of existing mechanisms (re-
lating to procedures for handling legis-
lation, preparation of budgetary ma-
terials, new procedures, water resource
and other projects, ctcj .
4. Federal agencies included. Section
102(2) (C) applies to ail agencies of the
Federal Government with respect to
recommendations or favorable reports
on proposals for (i) legislation and (ii)
other major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human en-
vironment. The phrase "to the fullest ex-
tent possible" in section 702(2) (C) i.
5. Actions includci}. The following cri-
teria will be employed by agencies in de-
ciding whellvi- a proposed notion rcquiies
the preparation of an environmental
statement:
,(a i "Actions" include tn.it are not lim-
ited to:
(i) Recommendations or favorable re-
ports relating to Jegis'lfiUoa including
that for appropriations. The require-
ment for lollowiug the reelion 102(2) (C)
procedure as ciaborntoc! in these guide-
lines applies t-o both (i) r.gency recom-
mendations on their own proposals for
legislation and (ii) agency reports on
legislation initialed elsewhere. (In the
iatler case only the agency which has
primary resnonsibility for the subject
matter involved will prepare i:n environ-
mental statement.) 'Die Office of Man-
agement and budget will supplement
these general guidelines with fipcc.iflc in-
structions relating to the v.-ny in which
the section 102(2) (.C; procedure fits into
its, legislative clearance process;
(ii) Projects end continuing activities:
directly undertaken by Fcck-ral agencies;
supported in who)? or in part through
Federal contracts, Krf.:;'..s, sufosk.'ii.s,
loan:;, or other forms of iir.iuing assist-
ance; involving a Federal lcr.se, permit,
license, certificate or other entitlement
for use;
(iii)' Policy, regulations, and proce-
dure-making.
(b) The statutory clause "major Fed-
eral actions significantly affecting !he
quality of the human environment" is
to be construed by sgeneios with a view
to the- overall, cumulative impact of the
action proposed (and of further actions
contemplated). Such actions may be lo-
calized in their impact, but if there if
potential that the environment may be
significantly affected, the statement is to
be prepared. Propos'r-d actions, the en-
vironmental impact of which is likely to
be highly controversial, should be cov-
ered in all cases. In considering wbn,t
constitutes major action significantly af-
fecting the environment, agencies should
bear in mind that tiie cur-ct of many
Federal decisions about a project or com-
plex of projects can be individually lim-
ited but cumulatively considerable. This
can occur when one or more agencies
over a period of years puts into a project
individually minor but collectively major
resources, when 'one decision involving
a limited amount of money is a prece-
dent for action in much largsr cases or
represents a decision in principle about
a future major course of action, or when
several Government agencies individual-
ly make decisions about partial aspects
of a major action. The lead agency
'CDEIiAl HEGIVP.; VOL. 36, NO 79—FRIDAY, AP
-------
B -1
should prepare an environment:';! state-
ment if it is reasonable to anticipate a
cumulatively si;.nincant impact on the
environment from Federal notion. "Lead
agency" refers to the J'ecirrul agency
which has piimary authority for com-
mitting the Federal Government to a
course of action \vith significant envi-
ronmental impact. As necessary, the
Council 011 Environmental Quality \vill
assist in resoh ing questions of lead
agency determination.
(c) Section 10 Ub) of the Act indicates
the broad range of aspects of the en-
vironment to be surveyed i;i nny assess-
ment of significant effect.'The Act also
indicates that adverse significant effects
include those that degrade the quality
of the environment, curtail the range of
beneficial uses of the environment/and
serve short-term, to the disarh antagc of
long-term, environmental goals. Signifi-
cant effects can also include, actions
which may have both beneficial and
detrimental effects, even if, on balance,
the agency believes that the effect will
be beneficial. Significant adverse effects
on the quality of the human environ-
ment include both those that directly
affect human being.1; and those that in-
directly affect human beings through
adverse effects on the environment.
(d) Because of the Act's legislative
history, environmental protective, regu-
latory activities concurred in or taken
by the Environmental Protection Agency
are not deemed actions which require
the preparation of environmental state-
ments under section 102(2) iC> of the
Act.
6. Content nf environmental state-
ment, (a) The following points are to
be covered:
(i) A description of the proposed
action including information and tech-
nical data adequate to permit a careful
assessment of environmental impact by
commenting agencies. Where relevant,
maps should be provided.
of the Act).
(iv) Alternatives to the proposed
action (section 102(2)'D) of the Act
requires the responsible agency to
"study, develop, and describe appropri-
ate alternatives to recommended courses
of action in any proposal which involves
unresolved conflicts I'onccrnir.f; alterna-
tive u.'-.os of available resource;;"). A rig-
orous exploration mui objective evi'Hia-
tion of alternative actions lh.:t mi;..ht
avoid some or all id the adverse environ-
mental effects is cvsential. Snfiicirnt
analysis of such alternatives ant! their
cost.'; and impact on the environment
should accompany the proposed iiction
tlmnmh the agency review process in
order not to foreclose prematurely op-
tions which might have less detrimental
effects.
iv) The relationship between local
short-term uses of man's environment
and the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity. This in es-
sence requires the nra-ncy to assess the
action for cumulative and long-term
effects from the perspective that each
generation is trustee of the environment
for succeeding generations.
(vi) Any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources which would
be involved in the proposed action should
it be implemented. This requires the
agency to identify the extent to which
the action curtails the range of benefi-
cial uses of the environment.
'vii) Where appropriate, a disc.u:;sion
of problems and objections raised by
olher Federal, State, and local agencies
and by private organizations nnr.1 indi-
viduals in the review process and the
disposition of the issues involved. (.This
section may be added at the end of the
review process in the final text of the
environmental statement.)
(b) With respect to wmeu- quality as-
pects of the proposed action which have
been previously certified by the appro-
priate State or interstate organization as
being in substantial compliance with ap-
plicable water quality standards, the
comment of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency should also be requested.
(c) Each environmental statement
should be prepared in accordance with
the precept in section 102(21 (A) of the
Act that all agencies of the Federal Gov-
ernment "utilize a systematic, interdis-
ciplinary approach which will insure the'
integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design
arts in planning and decisionmaking
which may have an impact on man's
environment."
(d) Where an agency follows a prac-
tice of declining to favor an alternative
until public hearings have been held on
a proposed action, a draft environmental
statement may be prepared and circu-
lated indicating that two or more alter-
natives are under consideration.
(c) Appendix 1 prescribes the form of
the summary sheet which should accom-
pany each draft and final environmental
statement.
7. Federal agencies to be consulted in
connection with preparation of environ-
mental statement. A Federal agency
considering an action requiring an en-
vironmental statement, on the basis of
(i) a draft environmental statement for
which it takes responsibility or '.e with r"S].v( i lo
any cnvironine!'!.'!! iuip."ct inv.Vi\.-d.
These Federal ar.enc'ic:, inc'niil-j com-
ponents of ukprndinir on the aspect, or
aspects of the environment) :
Ad\ !c.(,ry Cuunril nn Ili'.'.oric I'ronprvaU'XM.
Deiiar'nK'iii of AKI iculiuro.
Dep-rlmrnL <)] Comincicr..
Department (if Defense.
Department, of Health. KduriUlon, and Wel-
fare.
Depart incut of HoMsin;.; r-nd Urban Develop-
ment.
Department nf the Interior,
De-part men! of .SUILC.
Dcpar; men! ol X:vj'.' portntion.
Atomir. l"nc .'py c:om:ni.-xMon.
Perietal Power Comvntr-.skin.
Environmental I'roiection Agency.
Ollice of Economic Opportunity.
For actions specifically afi'ccttn.0 the en-
vironment of their geographic jv.risdic-
tions, the following 1'edernl ".ml Federal-
State agencies are also to be consulted:
Appalachian U'.-.L:;O:I.\] Commission.
Agencies seeking comment Miou)'! de-
termine which one or more of t:;o. above
listed agencies arc appropriate to consult
on the b;:;'is of ths areas of < ypr.riisc
identified in Appendix '2 to th'\'-;: ;v,;i(ic-
linrs. It is recommended (i) !hrt l':c
above listed departments arul a,-.' nciu.-s
establish contact points, which of;en are
most appropriately regional offices, for
providing comments on the environ-
mental statements and soh'Mted
coordinate nnd consolidate the eomnun!;;
of their component entities. The re-
quirement in..section 102(2; (C) to ob-
tain comment from Federal pv';
-------
B-8-
department or agency of the Federal Gov-
ernment. Such written comment shall be
made public at the conclusion ol" any such
review.
(b) In the event the Administrator deter-
mines that &ny such lefrlE-lntion. iieUou, i.r
regulation In unsatisfactory Irur.i the MniKl-
poli't ol public he?.lth or v.-tlfare or environ-
mental quality, he shall publish his deter-
mination end the ma'/>r !-ha)l be lefcrisrl
to the Council on Environmental Quality.
(b) Accordingly, wherever an agency
action related to air or water quruity,
noise abatement and control, pesticide
regulation, solid waste disposal, radia-
tion criteria and standards, or other
provisions of the authority ol the Ad-
ministrator if the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency is involved, incHidinr; his
enforcement authority, Federal a^'cnciu:,
are required to submit Tor review and
comment by the Administrator, in writ-
ing: (i) proposals for new Federal con-
struction projects and other major Fed-
eral agency actions to which section
102(2) (C) ol the National. Environmental
Policy Act applies and. (ii) proposed legis-
lation and regulations, whether or not
section lo^(2)(C) of the Untional En-
vironmental Policy Act applies. (Actions
requiring review by the Administrator do
not include litigation or en'urccrneiitpro-
ceedlncs.) The Administrator's com-
ments shall constitute his comment*, for
the purposes of both section 309 of the
Clean /nr Act and section 102(2) (C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act,.
A period of 45 days shall be a!lo\ved for
fiuch review. The Adrn'nistrp tor's written
comment shall be furnished to the re-
sponsible Federal department or agency,
to the Council on Environmental Quality
and summarized in a notice published in
the FL-DIML REGISTER. The public may
obtain copies of such comment on request
from the Environmental Protection
Agency.
9. State and local review. Where no
public hearing has been held on the pro-
posed action at which the appropriate.
State and local review ha,'' been invited.
and where review of the environmental
impact of the proposed action by Slate:
and local agencies authorized to develop
and enforce environmental standards is
relevant, such State and local review
shall be provided as follows:
(a) For direct Federal development
projects and projects assisted under pro-
grams listed in Attachment D of the Of-
flee of Management and Uudget Circular
No. A-95, review of draft environmental
statements by State and local govern-
ments will be through procedures set
forth under Part 1 of Circular No. A-S5.
(b) Where these procedures are not
appropriate and where a proposed action
affects matters within their jurisdiction,
review of the draft environmental state-
ment on a proposed action by State and
local agencies authorized to develop and
enforce environmental standards and
their comments on the environmental
impact of the proper ~-d action may be
obtained directly or by di:,tributinr? the
draft environmental stnLenient to the
appropriate State, regional and metro-
politan clearinghouses unless the Gov-
ernor of the State involved has desig-
nated *ome other point for obtaining this
review.
10. Use of statements in nficncy re-
view processes; i-if'rfijuiion io Council
or. Ki;:'iror.mcii!al Quality; m_>; c'tituii prior approval by Fv.cl-
C'K.l : -. oncies of specific project;- the view
«.;t j''it:-:-rr.l, Suite, and local nr-.eudcs in:
the k-.' 'blauve process may have to r-uf-
fiC1.1. "ix: principle to be apphcci is to
tbi-jii; vie-.vs of other agencies at the
earl>e--t fefisible ii;r>e in the development
of p!v.:.r£'.m and project proposals. Care
should t;e e-:>:ercis>.d so as not to duplicate
the clearance process, but when actions
bcintr considered differ significantly
from those thru, lisvc already been re-
viewed pursuant to section 102(2) (C) of
the Act an environmental statement
should be provided.
(b) Ten (It!) copies of dralt environ-
mental statement s (when prepared), ten
(10) copies of ;ill comments made there-
on (to be fcnvarded to the Council by
iiie entity mating comment at Die time
comment is Jo:warded to the responsible
agency), and ten (10) copies of the
final text of environmental .stfiteiijents
(toyeU.'or with nil comments received
thercori by tlic responsible agency from
Pe.lenU, State, and local agencies and
from private organizations and individ-
uals) shall be supplied to the Council on
K'U'iro.'imentfil Quolity in the R.ecutive
Oilier; of the President (this will serve as
making envirr.iunental -statements avail-
able to the President). It is important
I hat draft environmental statements be
prepared and circulated for comment
arid furnished to the Council early
enough in the pgency review process be-
fore: p.n action is If:ken in order to permit
meaningful cons-deration of the envi-
ronmental issues involved. To the
_ii'>_r_xin'j_:yji extc-nt practicable no f.dmin-
l.;;Lrat;ve action (i.e., any proposed action
to be t.'i!:en by the agency other than
fipency iiroposc.ls for leuislation to Con-
r'-c'ss or ngeiicy reports on legislation)
subject to section 102(.2)(C) is to be
taken sooner thr.n ninety (90) days after
a tire ft emii-onmer.tal statement has
been Circulated for comment, furnished
to the Council a""'-.tU lesTislnlion
or'rejjort. In crises v,h""o the scha'.Uilin.'r'
of cons'reosionril hearings on rrcoiKiiicn-
dations or reports on prciposils for lcr.ii-
laticn vhich the Fcderfil f""ei:::-yihft,'; fi'V-
warded to the Congre-s clo;,', not nl'iov/
rdequnte time for the eoiiip.l'-tioi: r;f a
final text of ;m environmental staienjuit
(together with comniein.';'), a draft en-
vironmental statement mr-y be furnished
to the Congress rind ia;iac available; to
the public pending transmit tal of the
comments as received and the final te.--:t.
(d) AVhere. emergency circumslar.c.es
make it necessary to f:'-;e an action ^.-ith
significant environment p! 'impact v.-ifli-
out observing- the provisions bf • these
guidelines concerning minimum periods
'for -npcncy review p.rid Pdv^nct1 avp'l-
ability of environment"! statements,.!'1!;;
Federal auoncy propoMnn to take tho
action should consult with the Council
on Environmental Ounlity about al'trr-
.native arranGcments. fimilnrly, wlv.rn
thcr.e ai-e overriding cori^i-.'orj'.tion.s oi
expense to the Government', or impaired
program effectiveness, the responsible
agency sliould consult V.~,c Council cr»;-
cernin;: appropriate mof.'i'.Icaiions of the-
minimum periods.
(e) in accord with the policy cf U;c
National J3nvironmcntal Pol'C? Act r;nd
Exerutive Order 1151* agencies have a
responsibility to develop procedures io
insure the fullest praciicable provision
of .timely public inforinntion snd under-
standing of Federal plans r-.nd programs
with 'environment".} 'impn.ot in order to
Obtain the views of interested parties.
These procedures shall include, when-
ever appropriate, provision, for public
hearings, and shall piovidu the public
with relevant information, including in-
formation on alternative courses of
action. Agencies which hola'heai'in:'s on
proposed administrative aoUons or legis-
lation should make the draft envii on-
mental statement available to th-2 public
at least fifteen (IS) days prior to the
lime of the icltvanl hearings except
Vv'herc the arrencv prepares the draft
statement on the basis of a hiring sub-
ject to (lie Administrative Procedure Act
and preceded by adequate public notice
and infornifitkm to iclei.itlfy f!ie issui'1."
and obtain tne commer.t:; provided for
in section:: C-9 of these rruirtelines.
(f) 7')ie a,;eney which prepared the
environmental statement is responsible
for making the statement find the coni-
inr-nts received available to the1 public
pursuant to the provisions of the Free-
dom of Information Act (5 U.S.C., ccc.
552), without regard to the exclusion of
interagency memoranda when such
-------
B -9-
memoranda transmit comments of Fed-
eral agencies listed in section 7 of these
guidelines upon the environmental im-
pact of proposed actions subject to sec-
tion 102(2) (C).
(g) Agency procedures prepared pur-
suant to section 3 of these guidelines
shall implement these public informa-
tion requirements and shall include ar-
rangements for availability of environ-
mental statements and comments at the
head and appropriate regional offices of
the responsible agency and at appro-
priate State, regional, and metropolitan
clearinghouses unless the Governor of
the State involved designates some other
point for receipt of this information.
11. Application of section 102(2) (C)
'procedure to existing projects and pro-
grams. To the maximum extent practica-
ble the section 102(2) (C) procedure
should be applied to further major Fed-
eral actions having a significant effect
on the environment even though they
arise from projects or programs initiated
prior to enactment of the Act on Jan-
uary 1, 1970. Where it is not practicable
to reassess the basic course of action, it
is still important that further incre-
mental major actions be shaped so as to
minimize adverse environmental conse-
quences. It is also important in further
action that account be taken of environ-
mental consequences not fully evaluated
at the outset of the project or program.
12. Supplementary guidelines, evalua-
tion of procedures, (a) The Council on
Environmental Quality after examining
environmental statements and agency
procedures with respect to such state-
ments will issue -such supplements to
these guidelines as are necessary.
(b) Agencies will continue to -assess
their experience in the implementation
of the section 102(2) (C) provisions of
the Act and in conforming with these
guidelines and report thereon to the
Council on Environmental Quality by
December 1, 1971. Such reports should
include an identification of the problem
areas and suggestions for revision or
clarification of these guidelines to
achieve effective coordination of views
on environmental aspects (and alterna-
tives, where appropriate) of proposed ac-
tions without imposing unproductive ad-
ministrative procedures.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Chairman.
APPENDIX I
(Check one) ( ) Draft. ( ) Final
Environmental Statement.
Name of Responsible Federal Agency (with
name of operating division where appropri-
ate).
I. Name of Action. (Check one) ( )
Administrative Action. ( ) Legislative
Action.
2. Brief description of action Indicating
what States (and counties) particularly
affected.
3. Summary of environmental impact and
adverse environmental effects.
4. List alternatives considered.
5. a. (For draft statements) List all Fed-
eral, State, iind local agencies from which
comments have been requested.
b (For final statements) List all Federal,
State, and local agencies and other sources
from which written comments have been
received.
6. Dates draft statement and final state-
ment mnde available to Council on Environ-
mental Quality and public.
APPENDIX II—FEUHIIAL ACKKCIES WITH JURIS-
DICTION BY LAV/ OR SPKCIAL EXPERTISE To
COMMENT ON VARIOUS TYPES OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACTS
AIR
Air Quality and Air Pollution Control
Department of Agriculture—
Forest Service (effects on vegetation).
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Environmental Protection Agency-
Air Pollution Control Office.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Mines (fossil and gaseous fuel
combustion).
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
(wildlife).
Department of Transportation—
Assistant Secretary for Systems Develop-
ment and Technology (auto emissions).
Coast Guard (vessel emissions).
Federal Aviation Administration (aircraft
emissions).
Weather Modification
Department of Commerce—•
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration.
Department of Defense—
Department 01 the Air Force.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Reclamation.
Environmental Aspects of Electric Energy
Generation and Transmission
Atomic Energy Commission (nuclear power).
Environmental Protection Agency—
Water Quality Office.
Air Pollution Control Office.
Department of Agriculture—-
Rural Electrification Administration (rural
areas).
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers (hydro-facilities).
Federal Power Commission (hydro-facilities
and transmission lines).
Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment (urban areas).
Department of the Interior—(facilities on
Government lands).
Natural Gas Energy Development,
Transmission and Generation
Federal Power Commission (natural gas pro-
duction, transmission and supply).
Department of the Interior—
Geological Survey.
Bureau of Mines.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Toxic Materials
Department of Commerce—
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration.
Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Department of Agriculture—
Agricultural Research Service.
Consumer and Marketing Service.
Department of Defense.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Pesticides
Department of Agriculture1—
Agricultural Research Service (biological
controls, food and fiber production).
Consumer and Marketing Service.
Forest Service.
Department of Commerce—
National Marine Fisheries Service.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration.
Environmental Protection Agency—
Office of Pesticides.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
(eifects on fish and wildlife).
Bureau of Laud Management,.
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Herbicides
Department of Agriculture—
Agricultural Research Service.
Forest Service.
Environmental Protection Agency—
Office of Pesticides.
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Sport Flsherles'and Wildlife.
Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau or Reclamation.
Transportation and Handling of Hazardous
Materials
Department of Commerce—
Maritime Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric. Admin-
istration (Irnpuct on marine life).
Department of Defense—
Armed Services Explosive Safety Board.
Army Corps of Engineers (navigable water-
ways) .
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare-
Office, of the Surgeon General (Health
aspects).
Department of Transportation—
Federal Highway Administration Bureau of
Motor Carrier Safety.
Coast Guard.
Federal Railroad Administration.
Federal Aviation Administration.
Assistant Secretary for Systems Develop-
ment and Technology.
Office of Hazardous Materials.
Office of Pipeline Safety.
Environmental Protection Agecny (hazardous
substances).
Atomic Energy Commission (radioactive
substances).
LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT
Coastal Areas: Wetlands, Estuaries. Water/owl
Refuges, and Beaches
Department of Agriculture—
Forest Service.
Department of Commerce—
National Marine Fisheries Service (impact
on marine life).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (Impact on marine life).
Department of Transportation—
Coast Guard (bridges, navigation).
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers (beaches, dredge
and fill permits. Refuse Act permits).
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
National Park Service.
U.S. Geological Survey (coastal geology).
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (beaches).
Department of Agriculture—
Soil Conservation Service (soil stability,
hydrology).
Environmental Protection Agency—
Water Quality Office.
Historic and Archcologicul Sites
Department of the Interior—
National Park Service.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
-------
B-10
*>*partmcnt ot Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (urban areas).
Flood Plains and Watersheds
Department of Agriculture—•
Agricultural Stabilization and Research
Service.
Soil Conservation Service.
Forest Service.
Department of the Interior—
Durca'u of Outdoor Recreation.
Bureau of Reclamation..
Bureau of Sport. Fisheries and Wildlife.
Bureau of Land Measurement.
U.S. Geological Survey.
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (urban areas).
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers.
Jlfi7icraZ Land Reclamation
Appalachian Regional Commission.
Department of Agriculture—
Forest Service.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Mines.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. Geological Survey.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Parks, Forests, and Outdoor, Recreation
Department of Agriculture—
Forest Service.
Soil Conservation Service.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Land Management.
National Park Service.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers.
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (urban areas).
Soil and Plant Life, Sedimentation, Erosion
and }Iydrologic Conditions
Department of Agriculture—
Soil Conservation Service.
Agricultural Research Service.
Forest Service.
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers (dredging,
aquatic plants).
Department of Commerce—
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Geological Survey.
Bureau of Reclamation.
Noise Control and Abatement
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Department of Commerce —
National Bureau of Standards.
Department of Transportation —
Assistant Secretary for Systems Develop-
ment and Technology.
Federal Aviation Administration (Office
of Noise Abatement).
Environmental Protection Agency (Office of
Noise).
Department, of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (urban land use aspects, building
materials standards).
Chemical Contamination of Food Products
Department of Agriculture —
Consumer and Marketing Service.
Department of Health. Education, and Wei-
faro (Health aspects I.
Environmental Protection Agency—
Office of Pesticides (economic poisons).
Food Addiiircs and Food Sanitation.
Department of Health. Education, and Wel-
fare, (Health aspects).
Environmental Protection Agency —
Office of Pesticides i economic poisons, e.g.,
pesticide residues).
Department of Agriculture—
Consumer Marketing Service (meat and
poultry products).
Microbiological Contamination
Department of Health, Education, and Wei-
faro (Health aspects).
Radiation and Radiological Health.
Department of Commerce—
National Bureau of Standards.
Atomic Energy Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency—
Oflice of Radiation.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Mines (uranium mines).
Sanitation and IV'asfc Systems
Department of Health. Education, and Wel-
fare— (Health aspects).
Department of Defense--
Army Corps of Engineers.
Environmental Protection Agency—
Solid Waste Office.
Water Quality Office.
Department of Transportation—
U.S. Coast Guard (ship sanitation).
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Mines (minerpl waste and re-
cycling, mine ncid wastes, urban solid
wastes),
Bureau of Land Management (solid wastes
on public lands).
Office of Saline Water (demineralization
of liquid wastes).
Shellfish Sanitation
Department of Commerce—
National Marine Fisheries Service.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration.
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Environmental Protection Agency—•
Office of Water Quality.
TRANSPORTATION
Air Quality,
Environmental Protection Agency—•
Air Pollution Control Office.
Department of Transportation—
Federal Aviation Administration.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Department of Commerce—
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (meteorological conditions).
Water Quality
Environmental Protection Agency—
Office of Water Quality.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Department of Commerce—•
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (impact on marine life and
ocean monitoring).
Department of Defense —
Army Corps of Engineers.
Department of Transportation—
Coast Guard.
Congestion in Urban Areas. Housing al'd
riu;[ding Displicsmcut
Department of Transportation—
Federal Highway Administ.].a'u'.on.
lion.
Federal Highway Adminu.Uatlon.
Ofticc of Kronomic Opporlunil y.
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
mcii'l.
Department of the Interior--
Bureau of OuUloor'Kecreatioh.
Environmental Kflccts With Special Impact
in Low-Income Neighborhoods
Department of the Interior—
National Park Service.
Office of Economic. Opportunity.
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (urban areas).
Department of Commerce (economic devel-
opment areas).
Economic Development Administration.
Department of Transportation.—
Urban Mess Transportation Administra-
tion.
Rodent Control
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (urban areas).
Urban Planning
Department of Transportation—
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Department of the Interior—
Geological Survey.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Department of Commerce—
Economic Development Administration.
Water Quality and Water Pollution Control
Department of Agriculture—
Soil Conservation Service.
Forest Service.
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Reclamation.
Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Geological Survey.
Office of Saline Water.
Environmental Protection Agency—
Water Quality Office.
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (Health aspects).
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers.
Department of the Navy (ship pollution
control).
Department of Transportation—
Coast Guard (oil spills, ship sanitation).
Department of Commerce—
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration.
Marine Pollution
Department of Commerce—•
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration.
Department of Transportation—•
Coast Guard.
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers.
Office of Oceanogrnpher of the Navy.
P.iver and Canal Regulation and Stream.
Channelization
Department of Agriculture—•
Soil Conservation Service.
Department of Defense—
Army Corps of Engineers.
-------
B
-11
Department of the Interior—
Bureau of Reclamation.
Geological Survey.
urcau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Department o{ Transportation—
Coast Guard.
WILDLIFE
Environmental Protection Agency.
Department of Agriculture—
Forest Service.
Soil Conservation Service.
Department of'the Interior—
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
FEDERAL AGENCY Orricrs FOR RECEIVING AND
COORDINATING COMMENTS UPON ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
ADVISORY COITNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Robert Garvcy, Executive Director, Suite 618.
801 19th Street N\V., Washington. DC 20000
343-8C07.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Dr. T. C. Byerly. OfTice of the Secretary.
Washington, D.C., 20250, 3C8-7B03.
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION
Orville H. Lcrch, Alternate Federal Co-chair-
man, 1GG6 Connecticut Avenue NW., Wash-
ington, DC 20235, 907-4103.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (CORPS OF
ENGINEERS)
Col. J. B. Newman, Executive Director
of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of En-
gineers, Washington, D.C. 20314, 693-7168.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
For nonrc-RiiliUory matters: Joseph J. Di-
Nunno, Director, Office of Environmental
Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20545, 973-5391.
For reguiatory matiers: Christopher L. Hen-
derson, Assistant Director for Regulation,
Washington, D.C. 20545, 973-7531.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Sydney R. Caller. Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary for Knvirorimcntal Affairs, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20230, 967-4335.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Louis M. Rousselot, Assistant Secretary
for Defense (Health and Environment),
Room 3E172, The Pentagon, Washington,
DC 20301, 097-2111.
DELAWARE RIVER liASIN COMMISSION
W. Brinton Whilall, Secretary, Post Office
Box 300, Trenton, NJ OBC03, 009-883-9500.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Charles Fabrlkant, Director of Impact State-
ments O.llce, 1026 K Street NW., Wash-
ington, DC 20400, 632-7710.
KETEKAl. POWErt COMMISSION
Frederick H. Warren, Commission's Advisor
on Environmental-Quality, 441 G Street
NW., Washington, DC 20426, 380-0084.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Rod Krc-ger, Deputy Administrator, General
Services Adminislration-AD, Washington,
D.C. 10405, 343-0077.
Alternate contact: Aaron Woloshiii, Director,
Office of Environmental Aflalrs, General
Services Admtnlstration-ADF, 343-4101.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
WELFARE
Roger O. Egeberg, Assistant Secretary for
Health and Science Affairs, HEW North
Building, Washington, D.C. 20202,, 963-4254.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AN'n URBAN
DEVELOPMENT1
Charles Orlebcke, Deputy Under Secretary,
451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20410, 755-6900.
Alternate contact: George Wright, Office of
the Deputy Under Secretary, 755-8192.
] Contact the Deputy Under Secretary with
regard to environmental impacts of legisla-
tion, policy statements, program regulations
and procedures, and precedent-making proj-
ect decisions. For all other TIUD consultation,
contact the HUD Regional Administra-
tor In whose Jv.rtsdictlo?! the project lies, as
follows:
James J. Barry, Regional Administrator 1,
Attention: Environmental Clearance Of-
ficer, Room 405, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, Boston, MA 02203, 617-223-4066.
S. William Green, Regional Administrator II,
Attention: Environmental Clearance Of-
ficer, 20 Federal Plaxa, New York, NY 10007,
212-264-8068.
Warren P. Phelan, Regional Administrator
III, Attention: Environmental Clearance
Officer, Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, 215-597-
2500.
Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator
IV, Attention: Environmental Clearance
Officer, Peachtree-Seventh Building, At-
lanta, GA 30323, 404-526-5585.
George Vavoulls, Regional Administrator V,
Attention: Environmental Clearance Offi-
cer, 300 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago,
IL 60601, 312-353-5080.
DEPARTMENT OF THE IN 1KRIOR
Jack O, Horton, Deputy AssUlant Secretary
for Programs, Washington, D.C. 20240, 343-
0181.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Charles II. Conrad, Executive Director, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20576, 3U2--1IG3.
OFFICE UF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Frank Carlucci, Director, 1200 lulh Street,
NW., Washington, DC 2050G, 251-0000.
SUSQUM3ANA t;IVP:R BASIN COMMISSION
Alan J. Summerville, Water Resources Co-
ordinator, Department of Environmental
Resources, 105 South Office Building, Har-
rlsburg, PA. 17120, 717-787-2315.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Dr. Francis Gurtroll, Director of Environ-
mental Research and Development, 720
Edney Building, Chattanooga, TN 37401,
615-755-2002.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Herbert F. DcSirnone, Assistant Secretary for
Environment and Urban Sy.-u.ems, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20590, 420-^563.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Richard E. Slitor, Assistant Director, Office
of Tax Analysis, Washington, D.C. 20220,
964-2797.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Christian Herter, Jr., Special Assistant to the
Secretary for Environmental All'airs, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20520, 632-7904.
[FR Doc.71-5705 Plied 4-22-71;8:50 am]
Richard L. Morgan, Regional Administrator
VI, Attention: Environmental Clearance
Officer, Federal Office Bull-din^, 019 Taylor
Street, Fort Worth, TX 7010:2, 817-334-
2867.
Harry T. Morlcy, Jr., Regional Administrator
VII, Attention: Environmental Clear-
ance Officer, 911 Walnut Street, Kansas
City, MO 64106, 816-374-2661.
Robert C. Roscnbeim, Regional Admi'iititrator
VIII, Attention: Environmental Clearance
Officer, Samsonite Building, 1051 South
Broadway. Denver, CO 80209, 303-837-4061.
Robert H. Ealda, Regional Administrator IX,
Attention: Environmental Clearance Offi-
cer, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Post Office
Box 36003, San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-
556-4752.
Oscar P. Pederson, Regional Administrator
X, Attention: Environmental Clearance.-
Officer, Room 226, Arcade Plaza Building,
Seattle, WA 98101, 206-583-5415.
-------
Ell 1105-2-507
28 May 1971
APPENDIX C
i^iI)ZJ:^.VIJig.^li^r^VJ . STATr.MKN'TS
1. General. Preparation of environmental statements will be based on
considerations discussed in the CEQ Interim Guidelines and the detailed
guidance to follow. These directions are intended to assure consistency
of effort in preparing statements and are not proposed to induce unthinking
uniformity or limit flexibility when preparing the statements. These
statements have several levels of importance with reference to the
decision-making process, Corps relations with the public, and internal
project planning activities. A careful, objective detailing of en-
vironmental impacts, alternatives, and implications of a proposed
project should give reviewers both within and outside the Corps insight
into the particular trade-offs and commitments associated with the action.
The general public, environmental action groups, trade and special
interest associations, governmental agencies, and Congressional Committees
will all expect the statements to be a valid source of information on
project effects, as well as a reflection of how the agency views environ-
mental factors and seeks to accommodate them. Since the statements will
be made available to the public and may receive broad exposure in the
media, it can be assumed that they will receive careful scrutiny. Most
importantly, preparation of the statements should cause systematic
consideration of environmental impacts. An imaginative evaluation of
alternatives and their implications should begin in the earliest stages
of project formulation, with planners contemplating the criteria and
range of information to be employed in preparation of final statements.
2. Working Papers. In order to assure a comprehensive treatment of
environmental concerns, a check list of pertinent environmental elements
should be compiled by the environmental planners. A discussion of
these elements should establish their importance, placing emphasis on
whether they are unique, endangered, old, popular, etc. - in essence,
explore the. ecological, aesthetic, cultural and other values which
appear to make the elements environmentally significant. The manner in
which economic considerations affect those values should also be dis-
cussed. For projects on which initial formulation has been completed,
much of the information needed to characterize the elements may already be
contained in existing survey documents, design memoranda and project files.
Conversely, the organization of working papers at an early stage i.n the
planning process will assist in subsequent survey studies and post-
authorization design. Planners should keep abreast of current
C-i
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP C
28 May 71
literature and information sources to aid in compiling environmental
data. Two such information sources are: "Perspectives in Environmental
Planning," OCE publication, April 1970; and "Environment Reporter,"
BNA publication (each field office has a subscription) .
3. Environmental Elements. Logical categories and sample elements
for the working papers follow.
a. Geological elements: land forms (mountains, canyons), rock
and mineral features, paleontologic items (fossils), structures (faults,
synclines).
related: soils, erosion, strip mined areas, caves.
b. Tlydro.1 ogical elements: lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, rivers,
subsurface water, marshes, valley storage, springs.
related: turbidity, pollutants, aquifer recharge areas, surf.
c. Botanical elements: trees, shrubs, aquatic plants, microflora.
related: seasonal colors, virgin forests.
d. Zoological elements: mammals, birds, amphibians, fish, shell-
fish, raicrofauna.
related: migration routes, breeding characteristics.
e. Archeological/historical/cultural elements: ruins, artifact
sites, ghost towns, battlefields, cemeteries, festival sites, ethnic
colonies.
f. Economic conditions, social relationships, human well-being.
g. .Miscellaneous elements: scientific areas, National parks or
forests, hunting clubs, wildlife refuges, contemporary human features
(buildings, transportation systems).
It should be noted that the elements under the last three categories
are relevant to the human environment and their consideration is essen-
tial to assure treatment responsive to the full concern of the NEPA.
4. Format. Environmental statements will constitute a document separate
from other Corps papers and consist of the cover sheet, summary sheet,
statement, and letters of coordinations. All information will be typed
single spaced on one side of the page only. To facilitate review, draft
C-2
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP C
28 May 71
statements may be prepared in double space format. Appendix D includes
samples of format for draft and final statements.
a- ^£!Y£L_sJl£L?±- Th-is will be prepared on plain bond and will
contain the following:
(1) Date.
(2) Type of statement: Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
(3) Official Project name and associated water feature and state.
(4) Preparing office,
b. Summary Sheet. This will be prepared on plain bond and will
follow exactly the format prescribed by Appendix I of the CEQ "Guidelines
See Appendix D for samples of craft and final summary sheets. For the
dates required in item 6 use the following: draft statements use date of
ENGCW letter to CEQ, final statements use date -of OSA letter to CEQ.
5> Content of Stateinent. The body of the environmental statement will
contain the follcvuing eight separate sections (and attachment con-
taining coordination letters) with the length of each being adequate
to.identify and develop the required information and a one page map of
the proposed project. Artist's sketches and selected photos may be
incorporated, if they will be particularly helpful in describing the
environmental setting or environmental impacts.
a. Project description. Describe the proposal by name, specific
location, purposes, authorizing document (if applicable), current
status, and benefit-cost ratio. Generally delineate the project purpose
and what the plan of the. proposal entails. It is most important that
a clear word picture be presented. If reservoir, give, dimensions: sur-
face acres of conservation pool; flood control pool; acres of total
project; length; miles of shoreline, etc.; however, leaving out the
technical specifications unless these are important to the understanding
of just what the project is.
b.. Environmental setting without tho_ project. Describe the area,
the present level of economic development, existing land and water
uses, and other environmental determinants. Discuss in detail the
environmental setting without focusing only on the immediate area at
the risk of ignoring important regional aspects critical to the assess-
ment of environmental impacts. Include appropriate information on
topography, vegetation, animal life, historical, archeological, geo-
logical features, and social and cultural habits and customs. Discuss
population trends and trends of agriculture and industry and describe
C-3
-------
Ell 1105-2-507
AFP C
28 May 71
what the future environmental .setting is likely to be in the absence
of the proposed project. It is possibJe nnd often desirable to treat
the project setting in relation to river basins, watersheds or functional
ecosystems. Discuss the interrelations of projects and alternatives
proposed, under construction or in operation by any agency or organiza-
tion.
c. The. environnienu.al impact of the proposed action.
(1) Identify environmental impacts, viewed as changes or con-
versions of environmental elements v;'hich result from the direct or
indirectly from; include land loss and land use- changes which could
be expected downstream from and adjacent to the project such as urbani-
zation, changes in water features and characteristics, etc. Discuss
impact upon the economy and social 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 detri-
mental impacts of the environmental changes or conversions placing some
relative value on the impacts described. Discuss these effects not
onjy with reference to the project area5 but in 7;elation to airy applicable
region, basin, watershed, or ecosystem. Relate the impnet to the river
basin or regional entity in. which the .action ..is proposed; and discuss
the inter-relationship of projects and alternatives proposed, under
construction, or in operation by other agencie? or organizations. A
thoughtful assessment of the environmental elements should aid in deter-
mining impacts. For example, the filling of a portion of the we.tlands
of an estuary would involve the obvious conversion of aquatic/marsh
'areas to terrestrial environruents, 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 initi.a].ly detailed without making value
judgements while at this point are discussed in terms of their effects
(who or what is affected by the changes). Identify the recipient
C-4
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP C
28 May 71
(environment;nl element, interest group, industry, agency) of these
eflects and the nature and extent of the inpacts 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 developmental
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 thei.r abatement and mitigation measures in the following
section.
^• Any adverse cnvl_ronmen_ta 1 effects whi_ch_jcanruyt be avoided
should the proposal be :i nplenc-.p.rod. Discuss _only tho«e 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.
This 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 com-
parable 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) wiry each was not recommended. Identify alternatives as to
their beneficial and detrimental effects on the environmental elements,
specifically taking into account the alternative of no action. This
C-5
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP C
28 May 71
latter alternative requires a projection of the future environmental
setting if the project is not accomplished (includes hoth 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 spe-
cifically 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 con-
struction on piles or floats rather than on fill material. Discuss
other possible solutions which, may be outside Corps authorities.
-0- short-term uses of man's environ-
----
ment and the maintenance and enhancement, of lone.- 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 daivage 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 land-use patterns and development, alterations , in the organic pro-
ductivity 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 biocice additions to the waters might well affect
the inherent biological productivity of the estuary. Tn-oLher 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.
S • Any ir rev e.r s ible and irr_eJ^iciv_a_b_l_G comjr.it :n ents of resource s
wlii ch woxi 1 j b •;: :i n vo_l YJ^_i£L_L_!lL _£ ropor.trd _ action sh ould it be imp 1 em en ted.
Discuss irrevocable uses ol resources, changes in land use, destruction
of archeological or historical sites, unalterable disruptions in the
ecosystem, 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
C-6
-------
•ER 1105-2-507
APP C
28 May 71
irreversible or irretrievable effects. The particular aquatic habitat
filled in the marsh would be permanently lost for aqautl.c or-anisms
and fill would be removed from one area and deposited in another.
Include possible indirect actions - those made economically feasible, a
a result of the proposed action - that would cause changes" in land and
water use could not be halted or reversed under free enterprise prin-
ciples.
_s. The coordination and public partici-
pation 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
action and the environmental issues.
(2) Government agencies. Each government agency with whom coordi- •
nation of the environmental statement has been accomplished will be
listed. Relevant and appropriate 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 dis-
cussed in a res_ponse_. 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 govern-
ment 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.
C-7
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP C
28 May 71
(5) The reporting officer will make every effort to reconcile areas
of discrepancy or disagreement, where consents or reviewing agencies pose
significant objection, to or recoirjriend modification of the statement.
Where agreement cannot be reache'd within a reasonable period of time,
subsequent to receipt of comments, the comments will be discussed (in
(2) and (3) above) and a sub-section entitled "Unreconciled Conflicts"
will be added to this section of the stater.cr.t. This sub-section will
contain a brief, but complete and thorough discussion of the problem (s),
The discussion will be a,concise and objective analysis of the environ-
mental issues, presenting both sides of the issue.
C--8
-------
ER 1105-2-507
28 May 1971
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 pag.es D-6 thru 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.
D-l
-------
Ell 1105-2-507
APP D
28 May 71
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FORT MYERS BEACH CHANNEL, FLORIDA
Prepared by
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
9 April 1971
D-2
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP D
28 May 71
Fort Myers Beach Channel, Florida
(X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Statement
Responsible Officer U.S. Array Engineer District, Jacksonville, Florida.
1. Name of Action; (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative
2. Description J3f__AcJ:i_ori; Commence construction, about 1 October 1971
of a channel extension 11 feet X 125 feet X 2,000 feet with a turning
basin. Dredged material will be used as beach nourishment. Located in
Lee County Florida.
3a. Envi r onriien t: a 1 Imp a c t s : 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.
k- Adverse Environmenta] Effects: Loss of 7 acres of' bottom biota and
temporary turbidity during construction.
4' Alternatives: "No-development."
5. C ono ent s Re q u e s t e d:
Fla. Dept. of Natural Resources Fla. Dept. of Transportation
Fla. Dept, of Air and Water U.S. Dept, of Housing and
Pollution Control Urban Development
U.S. Dept. of Transportation Geological Survey, USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service,USDI Environmental Protection Agency
6. Draft statement to CEQ .
D-3
-------
Ell 1105-2-507
AIT D
28 May 71
FINAL
ENVIRONMEN T AL STAXEMENT
SOUTH ELLENVILLE, RONDOUT CREEK BASIN, NEW YORK
Prepared by
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
19 April 1971
-------
Ell 1105-2-507
APP D
28 May 71
South Ellcnville, Ronclout Creek Basin, New York
( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement
Respj3jisiblc_0fficc: U.S. Army Engineer District, New York, N.Y,
1. Name_of_Actlon_: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative.
2-
__ Initiate construction, on receipt of funds,
of a flood control protection project consisting of a system of levees,
concrete chute, stilling basin, debris barrier, floodwalls and tran-
sition walls, bridge replacements, and associated interior drainage
facilities in Ulster County, New York.
3. a.
]_c_ts_: 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
aquifers .
b. MX£I_^JlriXi££!2^^^llJ;;.ljl2£Jl£: Concrete chute will replace
natural stream and act as harrier to restrict circulation and may dimi-
nish water for recharging underground aquifers.
ives: Reservoir control; stream diversion; and "no-develop-
'
4. Al
inent. "
5. Comments Recejlyed:
Water Quality Office, EPA
Soil Conservation Service,USDA
N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Con-
servation
Village of Ellenville, N.Y.
6. Draft statement to CEQ_
Final statement to CEQ_
Bureau of Water Hygiene, EPA
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, USDI
County of Ulster, N.Y.
Town of Wararsing, N.Y.
D-5
-------
EE n0.r)-2-507
AIT P
28 Kay 71
a. Pub .He l^tjricj^;;: i.on, Tv.o public Meetings were held on this
project.. This Tit si; on ) September 1069 for the initiation of the
study and the second on ".?- February 1971 to discuss the proposed plan.
The o.nv.iror,r.ir.i:Lal aspect.. of the proposed plan were thoroughly discussed
News release.:: ware issued concerning the puMic met; tangs and that the
draft eiivirorrvL-r-;.:'-! stntor.ienf. ha:! ix.en prepared and V.\?E available from
the District )r:i;;iueer .
b. Cover. v.:ent_A;sr.-'C:; t-:s_. The draft environmental statement was
sent to the ,':•:> 1. J.c/./iiuv; fjO ;->-.-. nrinent a. 1 agencies requesting ~ their views and
co;Tir.ient_K . Tii:.-:'.Y c.Cir.pi^.nt;-". are E\;:.::V.'VJ :L;,0.d bo'Jov; and copies of the replies
attached, to ii;(.' envi i cT'onLal stal: e":ent .
CoirniKriJ:. : No coiuric'.ntr; to offer in connection with the project.
(2) BUPJ_;;V: G.?J?A":'Jl 'r''CTTE_^, li^.jPA.
Cc:v;:^nt : Corc:,n:rv-.'] ,•::• -"li L!/-: I'rcject and the Environmental Statement
since the I'O,'.":: ') -.yp--:c. ••; •:•.'' rccr .•..•.- L 3 ':;i are not a factor nor are there any
water iio.pply f a.:il;i.tie- .i :.'v-)l'/-?.d vir1; the project.
i^I:U^rli: '.--''j'.'.e.^tc'd ..h:-r. the phrase: "l^earing little value scenically"
be r::-.L Iv-ofc''! f j •.'.ii i. lie L"1"." i '"iiv;:;"!;;.
I^IirUl?^ : T'K> -e;:,-.". nt v/as co:':: i dered valid and the phrase was eliminated
from the pre5,c.:ic .;i. crit;':-.0:' •' ,
(3) SOTT, rorsirTVA'l'V:' ; Si." :••:'•.• rC:'^ USDA.
Qoi^era: V.'o • co^.rrv: ':^ to offer jn conn:'c.ticn with the project.
iii^yii1!!:. : ^-'-' jer:v t; ; J .": ]-.ave no adverse effects upon fish and wildlife
and it offer;-; oo oppo/ Lur. \ c v to h,.; if. fit these resources.
Jir-.?2£lL^!l : '-'••1C eor.;v ;.'*:': was ccosi dared valid ar.f] incorporated into the
present Stat.c-M.viit .
'-'!.err.auj.ve fails to deal squarely
with t.iie jntu:..;: • 7 T'DC ;;,-:.Jonal iirv ' ren;r.oni\-;l Pol:icy Ace of 1969.
l^ltPIL?.'!' Il: ^; '>..-:> livc-cl tl'i''-t I lie r.:ethod selected would best lend
itse!.f Lo i'c'.; .••:'•''•:'_';".'Inou'. i rrrrln 'wi c'ther topo^rapliic and geologic
charat:lt-riotl:'.-. of the area iron ;-. :..:rii:;n p.-Lit of view and still accom-
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP D
28 May 71
plish 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 neces-
sary 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', NY 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 con-
sequent erosion.
Response.: The comment was considered valid and was incorporated into
the present statement.
Comment: The phrase: "bearing little value scenically" is subjective.
Resp_onse: Concur in this comment," and the phrase was eliminated from
the present Statement.
Comjytent: A section of natural stream will be destroyed; natural
vege.~taTi.on 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 re-
place^ient"oT 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
loss"es~due "to a "no-development" alternative have not been identified; and
an alternative with only environmental objectives has not been included.
Response: A more detailed explanation of the alternatives considered
for The" project lias been included in the Statement. WLth regard to the
comment on the environmental losses that may result from a "no-development"
alternative, non-implemontation of the project would allow periodic flooding
D-7
-------
ER 1105-2-507
APP D
28 May 71
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 inhabit-
ants 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 1/2 mile
of natural stream arid an irretrievable commitment of the remainder of the
undeveloped flood plain.
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 plain 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 jnipacts that would result from project implementation.
(6) COUNTY OF ULSTER, NEW YORK.
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 arid the Shawangunk Valley, and will "help bring
more sportsmen and tourists into the area,
(7). VILLAGE OF ELLENVILLE, NEW YORK.
Comment: Concurred with the draft Statement and the project.
(8) TOWN OF VJAWARSING, NEW YORK.
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 proceeding section
under Cover nrn e n t Agen c i e s . Copies of all correspondence received will be
attached to the Statement. For further guidance see Appendix C.)
D-8
-------
SCHEDULE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS
Division
Department of the Army
(Corps of Engineers)
Date
A
Proiect, Action or Activity
03
t
i — i
->:G "or^i 435 1-H (OT)
3
Estm Fed
Cost (000)
'
C
Initiate
Preparation
D
Draft for
Coirments
E
Fwd Final
Strn.
F
Final Sttn.
to CEQ
G
Earliest
Action
X
to 0
CD
I ?•
-------
EC 1165-2-98
APP B
28 May 1971
INSTRUCTIONS
Col. A - List the project alphabetically by State broken down Categories
a. through d. (paragraph 3.b.(2)).
Note: A projec.t 'which has received a construction or land acquisition
appropriation, or is included in the President's Budget for FY 1972 for
construction or land acquisition, will be classified as "Continuing
Construction."
Col. B - Furnish the total estimated Fc-deral cost (FY 1972 Budget).
For O&M projects leave this column blank.
Col. C - List date the District began preparation of statement, or
scheduled date.
Col. D ~ List date the District Sent- draft statement to other 'agencies
and higher authority for comments or scheduled date.
Col. E - List date that final coordinated statement was forwarded by
Division to OCE, or scheduled date.
Col. F - If final coordinated statement has been placed on file with CEQ,
then list date of Office, Secretary Army's transraittal letter and leave
Columns C through E blank. Or for scheduling purposes allow six weeks
from date in Column E.
Col. G - List the later date of the following:
1. Column D plus 90 days.
2. Column F plus 30 days.
B-2
-------
The
Army
Corps of
Engineers
and
Environmental
Conservation
9 Questions
Department of the Army
Office of the Chief of Engineers
Civil Works Directoryte
Washington, D.C. 20314
February 1971
-------
In 7775 the Corps oj l-Jigineers was formed as a
part oj the Continental Army. Congress assigned
flic Corps its first civil function in 1X2-1. with
authorization to reinore sandbars and snags from
niaior navigable rivers. In l^Jfi nationwide. Federal
responsibility J'or flood control was given to t/ic
Corps. The; \rm\~ l-'nginccrs have conri/nicJ their
military mission, with defense junctions tluit range
from building hal/istic missile sires to handling
Army real estate. In addition, the Corps continues
to carry irs civil works responsibilities. Inn for
these fund ions the Chief of Engineers answers
directly to the Secretary of the Army and to
Congress, and not to the Department of Defense.
Today the Corps has more than 4.000 civil works
projects cither completed or under construction.
They include multi-purpose dams, navigation
pn'/ects. structures for shore erosion control, and
local J'/ood control projects. The Corps also has
permit powers regulating construction and
discharge in practically all of the nation's rivers
and harbors. In l{)70 the civil works appi'(>prialion
for the Corps was over I.I billion dollars. There
arc 2V.(lf>!> civilian employees and 280 military
officers now in the water resources program. The
construction work itself is carried out under
competitive contracts with private builders.
The Congiess. the Coips. and tin? public generally
have recogni/ed that the United States is facing
serious dangers to the quality of its physical
environment. Population growth, industrial
expansion, urban sprawl, pollution, and resource
exploitation are not only upsetting aesthetic
qualities of the landscape, but may be endangering
the biosphere itself. The country has been
committed to economic expansion, including the
constiaction of dams and canals, and the Corps
has been a part of this developmental process,
answering the requests of the people for
piolection against Roods, water for drinking and
for sanitation, recreation aieas. hydroelectric
power, and waterways for commerce and pleasure
craft. But loo often people have acted as though
there would be an endless supply of the nation's
land and water resources. The country is now
facing the necessity of insuring environmental
quality, including the need to strike a balance
between economic development and the
preservation of natural beauty and decent
surroundings.
Planning is necessary to preserve areas of natural
beauty, to design developments in harmony with
nature, and to conserve and protect the nation's
natural resouices. Regulation is necessary to avoid the
abuses caused by pollution and ill-considered
conslru'ction. C'iii/ens must be a ware 'of the dangers
to the enviionmeni, and should also know the role of
the Corps o! higinecrs an agency with extensive
impact on the use. development, and conservation of
Ihe nation's water icsources.
I. How docs (lie N;ttion;il Environmental
Policy Act of I%9 affecl Corps consider-
ation of its projects?
Ihis law outlines requirements foi systematic
consideration of environmental values for an\
pioject being planned. The Act icquiies that
project proposals include a detailed statement
which covers the following points: (I) the
environmental impact of the "proposed action: (2)
the adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided if the project is carried out; (3)
alternatives to the pioposed action; (4) the
relationship between the short-term uses of the
environment and the maintenance of lone-term
productivity; and (5) the irreversible" and
irretrievable commitments of resources which
would be involved if the proposed project is
adopted. A statement is to be forwarded to the
President's Council on Environmental Quality
-------
before each proposed piojivt is implemented.
I hose projects which ;ire now in progress, but
still include unresolved eiuiromnental "conflicts.
must also have statements piepaied The
environmental statements are a matter of public
record. The Coips is integrating tlie provisions of
this Act into its planning piocedmes. It should
be noted Jlmt the Hnviionmental Policy Act is
the first Congressional authority which allows the
Corps to consider the environment foi its own
sake in water resource development.
2. How will Corps planning affect future
environmental quality?
The ugliness of urban ^and industiial spiawl
piovides a lesson in what piecemeal and expedient
development can do' to the environment. Anyone
with an environmental perspective must leali/e
that only through planning careful, long-range.
scientitic planning can man design witli nature.
Like it or not. the population is incieasiim. and
increased demands are going to be made on our
land and water lesources. \Viih compiehensive
liver-basin planning, \\atei heeds can be foiesecn.
pollution control can be specified, and places of
beauty can be prcseived or' enhanced. "1 lie Corps
ol hnginee.s. as one of seveial agencies involved in
cooidinaling walei' icsouice use, p.uticipates in the
comprehensive nvci -basin study progiam uudei the
auspices o. the \Vaiei Resouices Council. This
appioach to planning diffeis horn the nune
tiaditional concept in many important ways. 'I'lie
goals ol eompiehensive planning include the need
for environmental quality and the geneial
well-being of the population as well as economic
ciiteria for the. local aiea and the nation. Ideally.
these goals will have equal statu.s in the planning.
system. Careful consideiation of widely diffeient
alternatives is one of the piimary advantages of
the comprehensive planning concept. The C'oips
has established the Institute foi Water Resources
specifically foi the purpose of developing
long-range planning methods, and for diaftin'g
policy for evaluating project alternatives with
criteria other than economic efficiency alone. In
April l^TO. the Chief of Engineers appointed a
6-member tr'nvironmental Advisoiy Board made up
of nationally known conservationists and
enviionmental consultants to help the Corps take
into account environmental conside:ations in all of
its activities.
3. Docs Corps research include consideration
of ecology?
The Corps is presently conducting several studies
hearing on ecological considerations. Some of them
directly concern immediate engineering problems:
others clarify the Corps'.course in the future and
point out the ecological problems caused by
activities in the past. For example, the Corps is
responsible for keeping waterways clear of aquatic
weeds, a job which has often -involved the use of
chemical herbicides. Studies with biologic controls
and the use of laser beams are offering alternatives
to the continued use of chemicals. In conjunction
with Harvard University, studies have been
undertaken to plan landscaping and design for
construction projects. The goal is to find the least
disruptive design ecologically as well as
aesthetically. A significant study on the effects of
engineering on coastal ecology is being sponsored
by the Corps in conjunction with university
consultants. Their recommendations may affect
construction and maintenance of many future
shore projects. The Institute for Water Resources
is developing a system for assessing.environmental
values to aid planners in protecting areas that are
especially significant as wilderness and wildlife
aieas and places of natural beauty or cultinal
importance.
4. Do local people participate in water re-
sources planning?
The cooperation of the local community, including
both suppoi t and criticism, is necessary in order for
the Corps to reali/e the actual public needs of the
project area. An initial meeting is held early in the
course of each study to explain the nature and scope
of the stud) and open lines of communication. Some
of the most effective local participation occurs during
meetings when the study is in the formulation stage.
when alternative solutions are reasonably known but
before a plan has been tentatively selected. In most
cases, a thiid meeting is held once a solution has been
tentatively selected, but before completion of the
report. An example of effe:tive public participation
occurred with the Morrison Creek Hood protection
project near Sacramento, California. The plan
originally proposed by the Corps was opposed by
several conservation interests. Criticism was based on
the fact that the project would open several thousand
-------
acres of rural land to urban development, altering a
wildlife habilat and a "greenbell" area. Because of
opposition biought forth at the public hearing, the
Corps arranged meetings with local interests to study
further alternatives. Corps recommendations for the
project have since incorporated the needs for flood
control in the uiban areas with recreation and
ecological requirements for the undeveloped flood
plain. In the case of Morrison Creek, there were local
people concerned enough to speak up and present the
Corps with their viewpoint.
The Corps does realize, however, that in many
project areas, people become interested in
proposed projects only after plans are authorized
and ground is broken. \Vhen interest is awakened
late in the development of a project,
conservationists have sometimes felt at a
disadvantage when presenting their views in the
face of caiefully compiled Corps data and
blueprints, l.i order to bring in the value
judgments necessaiy for true environmental design,
a new approach is being tried in the Omaha
District. The Corps of Engineers Colorado Citizens
Coordinating Committee on Environmental
Planning has • been formed for the planning of
Chatfield Dam and Reservoir near Denver,
Colorado. The recommendations of this group have
gone into the design for aesthetics, water quality,
wildlife, and other environmental aspects.
Hopefully, the lessons learned at Chatfield can be
applied to other Corps projects throughout the
country.
5. What positive effects on the environment
does n chini nnd reservoir project have?
A dam built for Hood control will exert a stiong
positive effect on the environment through its
basic function of preventing the devastation of
flooding downstream. Many Corps dams also
generate hydroelectric power, which is still the
most enviionmentally "clean" form of electricity.
With hydropower there is no air and water
pollution as there is with the burning of fossil
fuels, and no thermal pollution as with
contemporary nuclear plants.
Through Row augmentation, dams also can
contribute to water pollution abatement. Water is
released from storage reservoirs when the pollution
load downstream is too large for a river to handle.
With the additional streamflow, the river continues
to oxygenate and decompose the wastes just as
rivers have always cleaned themselves of natural
wastes. But rivers cannot be expected to take care
of the excesses of cities and industries, even with
flow augmentation. Pollution must be controlled at
its source. When dealing with wastes which are
practically impossible to stoo, such as agricultural
run-off and 'natural drainage, however, flow
regulation is a useful tool to supplement other
pollution controls.
The man-made lake behind a dam caii often be an
environmental enhancement. A lake not only
offers an interesting change in scenery, but
provides for recreation such as boating, swimming
and water-skiing not found in many free-flowing
rivers. In number of visits, the Corps operates the
largest recreation program in the Federal
Government, with more than 350 Corps-built
lakes. The shorelines of all Corps lakes are open
to the public. In many areas of the country, lakes
enhance sport- fishing. For instance, in many Corps
multiple-purpose projects,' the lake supports warm
water fishing, while the cold powerhouse discharge
provides a trout fishing habitat downstream.
6. What docs the Corps do about the nega-
tive effects of its projects?
A construction project such as a dam will have
some detrimental effects on the environment. A
dam will change a part of the river from a
free-flowing stream to a slack-water reservoir. Such
a change can have positive aesthetic and
recreational values. But there are cases where the
white water of a wild river must be valued as a
retreat from, motorboats and other forms of
"noisy" recreation. The problem is one of choice,
and one of advanced planning so that the
especially valuable wild livers can be protected.
Building a reservoir will also restructure the
immediate ecosystem. The condition of the fish
and wildlife has long be;n a consideration of the
Corps, especially in the realm of sport fishery.
Fish ladders and hatcheries have often been a part
of projects. The.largest sport fish hatchery in the
world is at Dworshak Dam in Idaho. The hatchery
will help sustain the migratory fishery of the
basin, which could otherwise be seriously curtailed
by the system of dams on the Snake aiid
-------
Clearwater Riveis. Also as a part of the Dworshak
pioject, some 40.000 acres of surroundinu land is
being managed for the protection of deer"and elk.
Water impoundment behind a dam causes a
stratification of water .temperature, the water
warming at the surface, and staying cold at the
deeper levels. Multi-level withdrawals from the
reservoir will allow whatever downstream
temperatures are found to be necessary. This
approach will also help maintain correct standards
ol dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Construction
itself can cause aesthetic scars on the landscape.
Corps specifications require the contractors to
minimixe aesthetic and environmental damage
during consti net ion and to restore the disturbed
areas upon project completion.
7. Does the Corps have authority to control
water pollution?
Water pollution control is chiefly the responsibility
of the Water'- Quality Office (WQO) in the
Enviionmenta! Piotection Agency (EPA), and of
state pollution control administrators. However, it
is illegal loi anyone to release wastes into
navigable waters without a permit from the Corps
of Engineeis. All permit applications of this nature
are reviewed In EPA in conjunction with the
State pollution control agencies. Applications
which cannot meet the standards for pollution
control are rejected by the Coips. The Refuse Act
of I S<)c) states that no wastes, other than
municipal sewage, may be dumped into navigable
waters or their tributaries from ships or shore.
Industries are being advised that they must have a
peimit for discharge or deposit in navigable waters
or their trihutaiies. Prosecution will follow in
those cases where dischaiges continue in violation
of State and EPA standards.
Quality Act. and the Environmental Policy Act.
environmental quality has increasingly entered into
the criteria for issuing permits. Regulations now
include requirements for evaluating the impact on
fish and wildlife, water quality, conservation.
pollution, aesthetics, ecology, and other factors, as
well as on navigation. Permit applications arc
reviewed by all of the appropriate State and
Federal agencies for environmental impact. The
Corps will issue a permit only after full
coordination with these agencies when
environmental considerations are involved.
9. How can individual citizens become in-
volved in the decision-making process for the
Corps projects or permit applications?
There are many levels at which the public can be
effective in issues of Corps policy and decision.
Some of these approaches are described in Question
4 above. Corps administration is highly
de-centralized, and the local District Engineer's
office is a good place for any interested citizen to
begin. The thirty-seven districts are administered by
ten Division Offices, organized in accordance with
major drainage basins. The divisions report to the
Office of the Chief of Engineers in Washington,
D.C. The following guidelines might be useful to
anyone interested in Corps activities.
Get tlic facts.
To be most effective, an opinion must he
based on fact, and should not reflect
misinformation or lack of information. Be
aware of Corps planning and study
activities. These are the seeds of future
proj'ects. The District office can inform you
of the planning activities in that area.
8. What other regulatory responsibilities
does the Corps have?
The Corps has icgulatory poweis in all of the
country's navigable'waterways. No dredging, filling,
or erecting of'structures should take place in these
waters without Corps approval. In accordance with
the original purposes of the laws, this permit
power was once exercised with a view for
navigational effects only. More recently, since the
Fish" and Wildlife Coordination Act. the Water
Background information on projects or
other activities in your local area can be
obtained from the District Engineer's
office.
The Public Affairs Office of the Chief of
Engineers can be contacted for information
on projects outside your area. Write:
ENGPA, Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
20314.
-------
e Environmental impact statements arc being
prepared for all new project proposals and
some on-going projects, in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of
l%9. Once these statements have been
referred to the Council on Environmental
Quality, they are available tor relerence in
the District office responsible for the
project, as well as in the Public Affairs
Office. Office of the.Chief of Engineers.
® Find out the stage of planning and
construction the project is in. Interest
expressed earl)' in the planning is most
effective: your alternative suggestions are
most useful at that time.
o On request, the District Engineer's office
will put your name or the name of youi
organi/ation on the Corps" mailing list.
Attend local Corps hearings and public nice rings.
wishing to testify should contact the
committee staff in advance.
c A Corps project is also dependent on the
support of the Governor of the State in
which it is to be built.
Build local support; be aware of organizational help.
o Whether you are for the proposed project
or for another alternative, try your ideas
out on others; obtain information, ideas,
and support from other interested parties.
© Nationally based organizations need the
support of wide membership, and can
supply information and help for making
their'members' interests known.
© No Corps action is taken without local
support. Organize-in your local area.
Hearings on projects and permit
applications are open to the public. The
times and places aie advertised in the local
ncvvspapcis. 01 can be obtained fioiii the
Di.sti id nl! ice.
All interested cili/ens are welcome to
testily al Ihe healings, and all testimony
becomes a peimanenl part of the official
pioject record. \Vrilten testimony can also
be submitted for inclusion in the record.
Be aware of the facts;
express your opinion.
be interested enough to
Know ilic decision-making process.
e Neaily all Coips projects must be approved
by Congress, for aulhoii/ation and for
funding. A project's funding is considered
every year.
o The House and Senate Committees on
Public Works must levievv authori/.ation foi
pioposed Coips studies or projects.
° Projects must be reviewed foi funding by
the Appiopriations Committee.s of both
houses.
© Interested citi/ens are welcome it) attend
the open committee hearings. People
-------
. Public Law 91-190
•* 91st Congrocs, S. 1075
January 1, 1970
.•
metanr f°r tbe (nv'™»™t. <° Pr°^< for i!
wej.t
C. 2. Ths purposes of (his Act dre.: To declare a national policy
wlnca vol] encourr,n-e productive and enjoyable, harmony between man
anc! Ins cnvivonniant ; to promote efi'ons v.'liich v/ill prevciu or cliini-
nato dnraago to t'ho environment and bio.-phei-p. and stimulate the
nwath and wcb'iu-e of man; to enrich the iinderotnndinj of 'the eco-
lo^'ici1! svstcros and natural resources important to the Nation; and to
estnolish a Council on Environmental
TITLE I
DECLARATION OF NATIO.VAL EKVIROirMENTAI, POLICY
SEC. 101._ (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of Poliolea
roan's; activity on the interrelations of all components of the, natural
int; cnviro.'imontfil C'/jf.lity to the oveiaii \vcifnrc arid dc-vr-lonmant of
m?in; clr-dari.-s thrit it. i, tl:c conunuinf j^oiicy of the rode".?.] Govern-
JTicnt, in rcr)j-.ir:rtin;i \:-itli State, and local rrovcrnmonis;. and other con-
cenK-.d j/nbhc rnd private orfiaiiixf-.tions. to v.?.e all prnciieaole means
find mc-'TJUK?, inchidinrj financial and technical assistance', in a man-
ner calculated to icotr-r and promote the pciicral welfare, to create and
maintain conditions under which man. and nature can exist in
productive harmony, ar.d fulfill the racial, economic, and other
requirements of present and future generations oi Americans,
(b) In order to carry out the policy s:.jt i'orih in th.is Act, it is the
continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to usre all prac-
ticable nic-^ns,' conr;if.tent with other e«.tiitial considerations of
na.tioiial jiolicv, to improve and coordinate federal plans, functions,
prorrrams, and re.-ourcf-s to the end that the X at ion may —
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of
the environment for suc^pcdinrj generations;
(2) fis^urt1 for nil Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
thetic-ally and cult
esthetic-ally and culturally pleasi
(3) ft tain the v.- iciest ran:;-e. oi r'ineilcial uso-s of the environ-
ment vi'Jiout degradation, ri'-k to health or safety, or other unde-
oirable and unintended comr.o,u<\ices ;
(4) r-rfr-erve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects
of our national heritar;.':, find maiiuaiji, v.-herever powible, an
cnvironinrai. v.'hich r-uj)port-s divci^ity and variety oi individual
choice; . ,
(fi) achieve a balance bi.tv.-ccn popu)«lion and resource u«J
v.-hi'ch will' permit hir:::i htuidnrds oi li\ ing and a wide, <;luu-ing of
li.f^'p amenities ;
-------
C3 STA.T.
Pub, Law 91-190
- 2 -
January 1, 1970
Adminis-fcration,
Copioe of ctata-
wcntfl, ctoilavail
81 Stat. 54.
(C) enhance the qualify of icm able resources and nppronch
the, infiximi.iji attainable recydir..": of dopletnble resources.
(c) The COIKTO.-^ recognizes t;;.-;t each person sh(l that each pi-i -on ha 2 a responsibility to con tribute
to (ho preservation and enhar.e<.-r.U'::c ci the o:i'\ irontnc-nt.
Src. lOii. The Congress autho: i;--.-s and di/'.'U thai, to the fullest
extent, possible: (1) the policies, ivryahuions, and public hr.vs of the
United States s-liall be interprctea and administered in accordance
•with the policies ?;•! forth in tni? Act, and \2) all agencies of the Fed-
eral Government shall—
(A) utili:-.e f, systematic, h!:fidis.oip]ir..>ry approach which will
insure the inu united use of t!;o natural vr.i[ social sciences and
tlio environmental de-sign :;Ki in planning and in ckeisionmiiking
which may have nn impact iv, i:V.',n's ciivironincul;
(B) ide.ntify and develop methods and procedures, in con-
sultation with the Council on r,::vironmen;;il Quality established
by title II of this Act. which will insure tluit presently unquanti-
ficd environmental amenitic-.- ai:ci values may 'LV given appropriate
consideration in decisionmn'.cing along with economic and tech-
nical considerations;
(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals
for legislation and other m.ijor Federal actions significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed state-
ment by the responsible ofiieia! on—
('}) the (:i'ivironment:J i;r,pnct of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse, environmental oiVi-cly which cannot be
avoided should the propo/a! be imioiemonted,
(iii) alternatives to .the uroposea action,
(iv) tlie rclations'nijj liotNeeen local short-term uses of
man's environment and '.}••? maintenance and enhancement of
long-U'i'm jn-oductivity, and
(v) any ii-reversible and .rretrievable commitments of re-
source-; which would be involved in the proposed action
should it I1.: implemenied.
Prior to making any detailed statement, the resjjonsible Federal
official shall consult witii a;id (.'brain the comments of any Fed-
eral agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expsnisi with
respect to any environmental impact involved, Copies of such
statement and thj comment;; and views of the appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies, which are authori/.cd to develop and en-
force environmental standards, shall be made, available to the
President, the Council on F.nviroiuncntni Quality and to the pub-
lic as provided by section 6,Vj of title o. I'nitcd. States Cede, and
shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review
processes;
(D) ctody, develop, and dc-tcribe appropriate alternatives to
recommended courses of fiction in any proposal which involves
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available, re-.
Eources;
_ (E) reco^r.ize^the worldwide and long-range character of cn-
viromnenttt) jr.-oblems end, \vhere consistent with the foreign
policy of the Uiiitcd States, Itncl appropriate support to initiative:,,
resolutions, arid programs Ui-.-iRned to maximi/e international
cooperation in ajiticiparing and preventing a decline in trie quality
of mankind's world enviror.nv.'nt;
(F) make Available to States, counties, municipalities, institu-
tions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring,
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment;
-------
January 1, 1970 _ 3 _ pub, Law 91-190
_ _Jj3 JjWTjJISjV
(Q) initiate and utilize ccoWical infonnntion in the. planning
andv«eve.lopniein of rc.-joiirce-oriemed piojccls: mid
Ui insist the Council on Enviro'.imenUl QuiJity established
by title II of this Act.
Src. 103. All agencies of the Federal Government shall icview Review.
tlieir present statutory authority, administrative relations, and cur-
rent poncies and procedures for the. purport of. cu'termininc; whether
tncro are any deheiencies or inconsistenci.:;; the;-<:i:i which prohibit.
fuL compliance, with the purposes and provisions of this Art and shall
o.'.u. iuu. ^oinuiK in section 102 or K'o snaJl in any wav iilicct the
spe.cific^ statutory obligations of any Federal a::i-ncy (l)"to coni])ly
with criteria or standards of environmental quality, '(:"') to coordinate.
or consult wilh any other Federal or Sffito fiR-enc'v, or (3) to act, or
refrain from acting com indent ujjon (lie reconnnc'ndaiions or ccrl ill-
cat ion of any otl\er Federal or State. a«enry.
SEC. 1C5. The policies and conls r.at forth in this Act are supplemen-
tary to those set forth in existing autliori/.ations; of Federal agencies.
TITLE II
COUNCIL ON ENVTROXMliNTAJ, QUALITY
S_EC. 201. The President shall transmit to the- Congress annually Rep0r-t to
beginning July 1, 1970, an Knvironniental Quality lu-port (herein- coneross.
after rc-icrred to as the "report1') which r-hnll Pt-t •fi'rth.Jl) the status
and condition of the major natural, mamnade, or altered environ-
mental ch;f;cc-,s of the Nation, inc'luciinit, but not. h'mked to, tlie f'.ir,
tho arjuatia, includiiu'' mariije, c-stur.rir.o, iind f:'i.\;)i water, and. liic
(errestria! cnviro;i;ne!H, inchidinp, bat not limiicd to, tlv.1. forest, dry-
hind, v.'C'.tlfi!ul, ran^e, urban, snburbaii, r.nd rui'f.l evi'/ironinont; (;',)
current inul lore^eablr trends in (lie quality, man;',<;i/nient nnd util:;;a-
tion of' such environments and the eli'tct.Li of those tivnd.v on ilio sociul,
economic, and other requirements of (lie Nation; (;i) the adequacy of
available natural resource:-, for fulfilling liurnan and economic require-
ments of tho Xation in the light of expected population pressure;;; (
-------
Pub. Law 9-1-190 - 4 - January 1, 1970
01 •'Si?''-T[fj.8-':L— •• — «• •—
Sr.c. £03. The Council may employ such of!!.?1.: \- and- employees -r.s
may b;-. necessary to cany .out i's f'ineivonr under1! if-: Act. In i^ldiLion,
the,'Council'may emuloy ah.l fi?:'ihc.ci'm;;',;!! i-rif-'i ru such e:;poris and
con suit an!;, as may iv. nee >;-.-.:,ary for th i-.i^j-.'maiion concerning
tlm conditions and trend:; in ib.a qaa'ily-of tho. enviromnent both
current and pro:;).H-,:v.ive, to rinnly;:o and mlrrprvi GUC)^ informa-
tion for the p\irpoKO of dctonnin.;n;r v.'bovhfr St'.cii conditions and.
trends are interierinfr, or arc. lii-rely to inic-rferc, with thu achieve-
ment of the policy sec forth in tills 1 of tl1-:.. Acv, and to compile,
nnd submit to the President sludic-s rc.'ating to such conditions
and trends;
(3) to review and ypprai.so the. -\ arious programs and activities
of the Federal Government in fhe li;'hf of the policy st-t forth in
titlp I of this Act Cor Jhe purpose of determining the, oxtent to
which such programs and acluidc-s are convributin^ to tho
achievement of such jiolicy, and. to make rccomuvndaticns (o tha
President v,-ith respect (hereto;
(4) to develop ar.d recommend to the President national poli-
cies to foster and promote the improvement of environraental
quftiity to meet i-ie comervatioj!, social, economic, health, and
other requirements nnd Koais of-the Xation-;
('!).. io report-a,t.Ica^t one;.' e-acli ;vft.:ir to il-,» Prejidant on the
state and condition of thGonviro'irnont: nnd
(8),to: make .and a'v.nrlslr such rtudies, reports tLcrc.on, and
recommendations \rith respect to matters oi policy find legisla-
tion as tha Prcsiderit i-r.ay rerruf.^-^
SEC. 205. In extrckin?: its powers, functions.-and'duties under tliis
Act, t]u> Council -;h?.!l—"
(1) consult, Tvith ths Citizen.?' Advisory Comimtleo on Environ-
34 F. R. 6093.
and looul [fovernrnents and other groups, as it dcem.s advisable;
nnd
(2) utilize, to the fullest extent po.^iblo, the r-.^rvices. facilities,
nn_d information (incluclinpr sir tidier. 1 informi/.tion) of public and
privato agencies r.nd orfani^f.tion?, ar,d individuals, in'order that
duplication of ei'/cri and e::p-jn.c.3 may bo avoided, thun aE=uring
that the Councirs activkies will no: unnecef.rarily overlap or con-
flict with similar activities authorised by law and performed by
established agencies.
-------
January 1, 1970 . 5 _ Pub§ Law 9U190
SBO. 200. Mcinbora of (hs Council r.hall wrvo full lima tind tho Tenure and
Wan-man ox the Council shrill bo cojnne.nE.Med r.t the nUo provided <'o~,Mnfiation.
for Lovftl J.I o^tho Executive Sclic.6v.le. 1'nv IlnJw (5 U.P.C, f.313). GO stat. «o,
IhG ptnor momoera oi iho Council ehr.)) bo compc-iuatod r.t (ho ruto ifi). ' 01 Stut. 638.
£1:0.^:07. "J.liDre are £iuthomi>d to ba r.pi-nxjpvJr.tcd to cr.rry out tha A
ESPI'l0-153,, o£' >b-is Act J1°t to exceed CniOOA'O for li!/.-al year 1970,
VfOO.OOO lor fircal yc.r,r IL'Vl, 6Rd 1^1,000,000 for cacJi iisud year
thor&after.
thor&
Approved January 1, 1970.
HOUSE REPORTS I .Mo. 91-370, 51-370, pt. 2,actompnJVlnfi H. R. 12549
SCcrnn. or. I-ici'ohoJit I'c-j-ino & f isiiorion) and 91-765
Con;n, of Confsronoo),
SFSJ/.VE P,£?ORT Ko, 51-235 (Ccr.-.-s. on Interior & Innula? Affftlps),
oiiAL RSCOP.D, vol. 115 (1919)1
•July lOi Cc-i'isicJordd and piccod Sormto.
Scpt,23i Ccr.airisrod EJIC! pwcsd Kouos, ti;jondod, in llsu of
K. B. 12549,
Oot. 6t Sorato disagreed to Houce afflendaontsj tfreed tc
oe 20i Sen&to egrted to oonforonoo ropor-t.
, 22i Jioute c^i-oed to conforenoo report.
OPO S7.1W
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVS. . JN AND DISTRICT OFFICERS
DIVISION
(MAIL ADDRESS)
DISTRICT
(MAIL ADDRESS)
LOCATION &
TELEPHONE
OFFICER IN
CHARGE
Kuntsville, Alabam;
F.C. Sox 1600
Kest Station
35607
106 Wynn Drive
Huntsvilie, Alabama
205-395-5460
MG .Robert P. Young
Lcv:er Mississippi Valle^
P.O. Bo:; 30
Vicksburg, Miss.
391SO
Corner Crawford & Walnut MG A.P. Rollins, Jr.
Vicksburgr Miss.
601-636-1311; ext. 201
Memphis
668 Federal Office Building
Memphis, Tenn. 38103
New Orleans
901-534-3221
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, La.
St. Louis
70160
906 Olive St.
St. Louis, Mo. 63101
Vicksburg
P.O. Box 60
Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
Foot of Pyrtania St.
New Orleans, La.
504-865-1121; ext. 200.;
3-14-268-2821
601-636-1311
COL. John V. Parrish
COL. Herbert R. Haar,
COL. Carroll LeTellier
COL. oohn W. Brennan
.Missouri River
P.O. Box 103
Dovrntown Station
O.naha, Nebraska 68101
Kansas City
700 Federal Office Bldg.
601 E. 12th
Kansas City, -Mo. 64106
USPO & Courthpuse
215 North 17th St.
Omaha, Nebraska
402-221-1221
-816-374-3201
EG J.W. Morris
COL. Reuben Anderson
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVI' ON AND DISTRICT OFFICERS
DIVISION
(MAIL ADDRESS)
DISTRICT
(MAIL ADDRESS)
LOCATION &
TELEPHONE
OFFICER IN
CHARGE
Missouri River (CONT.)
Omaha
7410 USPO & Courthouse
215 North 17th St.
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
402-221-3900
COL. Billy Pencergras;
New England
424 Trapelo Road
ualtham. Mass. 02154
617-894-2400; ext. 220
COL. Frank P. Bane
North Atlantic
90- Church St.
Nov.' York, N.Y. 10007
Baltimore
P.O.. Box 1715
Baltimore, Md. 21203
New York
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York
Norfolk
Ft. Norfolk
803 Front St.
Norfolk, Va. 23510-
Philadelphia
U.S. Custom House
2nd & Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, Pal 1910S
212-264-7101
31 Hopkins Plaza
Baltimore, Md.
301-962-4545
212-264-0100
703-625-8201
215-597-4848-
MG Charles M.
COL. W.J. Love
COL. James Barnet
COL James H. Torrr.ev
COL. James A. Johnson
North Central
5~36 S. Clark St.
Chicaao, 111. 60605
Buffalo
1776 Niagara St.
Buffalo, N.Y. 14207
312-353-6310
716-876-5454; ext. 12
BG William W. '-ratkin,,
COL. Rav S. Hansen
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVJ TON AND DISTRICT OFFICERS
DISTRICT
(MAIL ADDRESS)
LOCATION S
TELEPHONE
OFFICER
CHARGE
Corth Central (CONT.)
Chicago
219 S. "Dearborn St.
Chicago, 111. G0604
Detroit
Rock Island
Clock Tower Building
Rock Island, Illinois 61201
St. Paul
1210 U.S. ?0 & Customhouse
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
I/nke Survev
312-353-6400
150 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, Michigan
313-953-1261; ext. _412
309-788-6361; ext. 224
612-725-7501
313-226-6161
COL. Mvron D. Snoke
COL. James E. Bunch
I COL. Charles McGinni:
LTC James M. Miller
-•,crta Pacitic
97209
Alaska
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Portland
P.O. Box 2946
Portland, Oregon 97208
j Seattle
220 S.W.. 8th St.
Portland, Oregon
503-226-3361; ext. 2500
J07-752-9114
2850 S.E. 82nd Ave.
Portland, Oregon
503-777-4441; ext. 200
COL A.C. Mathews
COL. Paul D. Triem
206-682-2700; ext. 300 COL. Howard Sarcean
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVL ON AND DISTRICT OFFICERS
DIVISION
(MAIL ADDRESS)
DISTRICT
(MAIL ADDRESS)
LOCATION &
TELEPHONE
OFFICER IN
CHARGE
North Pacific (CONT.)
Walla Walla
Bldg. 602
City-County Airport
Walla Walla, Wash. 99362
509-525-5500; ext. 100
P.O. Box 1159
Cincinnati, Ohio
45201
Huntington
P.O. Box 2127
Huntington, W/ Va. 25721
Louisville
P.O. Box 59
Louisville, Ky. 40201
Nashville
P.O. Box 1Q70
Nashville, Tenn. 37202
Pittsburgh
1828 Federal Bldg.
1000 Liberty Ave.
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222
550 Main St.
Cincinnati, Ohio
513-684-3002
502 8th St.
Huntington, W. Va.
304-529-2318; ext. 253
600 Federal Place
Louisville, Ky.
502-582-5601
MG -W.L. Starnes
COL. Maurice Roush
COL. John T. Rhett
306 Federal Office BldgL COL. John C. Bel-
Nashville, Tenn. I
615-242-8321; ext.5626
Federal Bldg.
1000 Liberty Ave.
Pittsburgh-, Pa.
412-644-6300
I
COL. E.G. v;c:;t
So
tlantic
510 Title Bldg.
30 Pryor St. , S.W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Canaveral
P.O. Box 21065
Kennedv Space Center, Fla.
32815
404-526-6711
Bldg. K6-1146
Kennedy Space Center,Fla.
305-867-2003 i
MG Richard H. Free
COL. Gilbert Newrr.an
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVI^^N AND DISTRICT OFFICERS
DIVISION
(MAIL ADDRESS)
DISTRICT
(MAIL ADDRESS)
LOCATION &
TELEPHONE
OFFICER IN
CHARGE
South Atlantic (CONT.)
Charleston
P.O. Box 919
Charleston, S.C. 29402
Jacksonville
P.O. Box 49fCT
Jacksonville, Fla. 32201
Mobile
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, Alabama 36601
Savannah
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, Ga.
31402
Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 2'8401
Federal Bldg.
334 Meeting St.
Charleston, S.C.
803-577-4171; ext. 229
Federal Bldg.
40.0 West. Bay St.
Jacksonville, Fla.
904-791-2241
2301 Airport Blvd.
Mobile, Ala.
205-473-0311; ext. 411
200 E. Saint Julian St.
Savannah, Ga.
912-233-8822; ext. 226
308 Federal Bldg.
U'.S. Courthouse
WiImington, N.C-
919-763-9971; ext. 466
COL. Burke W. .bee
COL. Avery Ful.Ierton
COL. Harry A. Griffith
COL. John S. Eqbcrt
COL. Paul S. Denison
South Pacific
630 Sansome St. ,Rm. 121J6
San Francisco, Ca.
94111
Los Angeles
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, Ca. 90053
Sacramento
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, Ca. 95314
415-449-2232
300 North Los Angeles St
Los Angeles, Ca.
213-688-5300
916-449-2232
COL. jarnes Donovan
COL. Robt. J. Malley
COL. James Donovan
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIV^LON AND DISTRICT OFFICERS
DIVISION
(MAIL ADDRESS)
DISTRICT
(MAIL ADDRESS)
LOCATION &
TELEPHONE
OFF-iCSR J,N
CHARGE
'South Pacific (CONT.)
San Francisco
100 McAllister St.
San Francisco, Ca. 94102
415-556-3660
:OL. Chas. Roberts
Southwestern
: 1114 Conferee St.
- Dallas, Texas 75202
Albuquerque
P.O. Box 1580
Albuquerque, N.M. 87103
Fort Worth
P.O. Box 17300
Ft. Worth, Texas 76102
Galveston
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77550
Little Rock
P.O. Box 867
Little Rock, Ark.
Tulsa
72203
P.O. Box 61
Tulsa, Okla. 74102
214-749-3336
517 Gold Ave., S.W.
Albuquerque, N.M.
505-843-2732
819 Taylor-St.
Ft. Worth, Texas
817-334-2300
Santa Fe. Bldg.
Galveston, Texas
713-763-1211; ext. 1301
700 W. Capitol
Little Rock, Ark.
501-372-4361; ext. 5530
224 South Boulder
Tulsa, Oklahoma
918-584-7151; ext. 7311
BG Harold R. Parfitt
COL. Richard West
COL. R.S. Kristofersc
LTC Nolan Rhodes
COL. Willian C. Burns
COL. Vernon VI. Pinkev
-------
Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board
Dr. Lynton K. Caldwell
Professor, Political. Science,
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana 47401
Roland Clement
Vice President
National Audubon Society
1130 5th Avenue,
N.Y., N.Y. 10028
Dr. Charles H.W. Foster
Executive Director
New England Natural Resources Center
Also: Research Fellow
Harvard University
848 Charles River Street
Needham, Mass. 02192
Harold Gilliam
Environmental reporter
San Francisco Chronicle
Richard H. Pough
Chairman of the Board
Open Space Action Institute and
America the Beautiful Fund
Also: American Scenic and Historic
Presentation Society
33 Highbrook Avenue
Pelham, N.Y. 10803
Charles H. Stoddard
Environmental Consultant
601 Christie Bldg.
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FROM FEB. 1 TO FEB. 28, 1971
To obtain a copy of a statement, contact the person whose
name is listed directly below the title of the particular
agency involved. Telephone numbers refer to Washington,
B.C., area code 202, unless otherwise indicated. Draft
statements are not listed after final statements have
been, received on a proposed action previously- covered in
a draft statement. When a final statement has not been
preceded by a draft, that fact is noted.
-------
House Public Works Committee
Majority: John A. Blatr.dk, Ch.
Minority: Hon. William Harsha
2165 f^ayburn Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Senate Public Works Committee
Majority: Van yiadricken.
Minority: Bailey Guard
Room 4202
New Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
House Committee on Appropriations
Attention: Public Works Subcommittee
Room H 218, Capital Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Senate Committee on Appropriations
Attention: Public Works Subcommittee
Room 111-0, New Senate Office
Washington, D. C. 20510
Donald Craybill> Director
Natural Resources Programs Division, OMB
New Executive Office Building
Room 8202
Washington, D. C. 20503
William White, Chief of River Basin Studies
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife :*
Room 3240
Washington, D. C. 20240
Dir. George B. Hartzpg, Jr
or
Raymond'Freeman, Deputy Director for Operations
National Parks Service "*•
Department of Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Erving Senzel, Assistant-Director, Legislation and Plans
Bureau of Land Management ''^
Department of Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
CVl kevi a.ro(A^s sKci'AA cc.^^S- (U of 1 0 t^-C c^'-iee^ prio
'-' « c c
-------
Ellis Armstrong, Commissioner
Burea.u of Reclamation
Department of Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Federal Activities Branch fcifc(Permit Review)
Water Quality Office
Environmental i'SHHttection Agency ^'s
Washington, D, C. 20406
Environmental Resources Branch, Planning Division
Civil Works Directorate
OCE
Washington, D. C. 20314
Economic Evaluation Branch
Civil Works Directorate
OCE-
Washington, D. C. 20314
Water Resources Council
Suite 900
1025 Vermont Ave. , N. W.
Washington, D C 20005
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
Temporary C. Bldg.
2nd and Q Streets, S. W.
Washington, D. C 20315
Council on.Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N. W
Washington, D. C. 20007
^ " "* ~" * fS n !, ^^.- /3^w-<"•-'KaxV-
f\ * A ^. n A^ /<
------- |