Albert, Hon. Carl, a Representative in Congress from the State of Okla- 40 Bowen, Hon. David R., a Representative from the State of Mississippi- Burleson, Hon. Omar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Chapman, Fred, representing the Environmental Policy Center--. Haas, Joseph W., Deputy Administrator for Water Resources, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture-- Page 84 Hanley, Hon. James M., a Representative in Congress from the State of 91 Heckler, Hon. Margaret M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts--. 172 Johnson, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State of 175 Kalen, George H., Fort Washington, Pa-‒‒‒‒ 28 King, Maynard A., executive assistant, Montgomery County Conservation 20 LaFalce, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New 54 Latta, Hon. Delbert L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 113 Long, Hon. Gillis, a Representative in Congress from the State of 153 Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of 100 Moakley, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 171 Monk, Marion, chairman, Johnson Bayou Watershed and director, Upper 155 Shriver, Hon. Garner E., a Representative in Congress from the State of 147 Skubitz, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas- 150 177 Steed, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma 40 Thone, Hon. Charles, a Representative in Congress from the State of 142 Thornton, Hon. Ray, a Representative in Congress from the State of 62 Vander Veen, Hon. Richard F., a Representative in Congress from the 44 Walsh, Hon. William F., a Representative in Congress from the State of 81 White, Hon. Richard C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 104 Wilson, Hon. Charles, a Representative in Congress from the State of 73 Withsosky, Robert, Upper Dublin Township resident__. 26 CORRESPONDENCE Hilgenfeld, Clarence F., chairman, Nemaha Natural Resources District, 143 74 Pressler, Hon. Larry, a Representative in Congress from the State of 11 Rexroth, Elmer E., director, Nemaha, National Resources District, letter of August 19, 1976 to Hon. Charles Thone----. 143 Smith, Rob, county judge, Palo Pinto, Tex., letter of April 21, 1976---. 70 188 WATERSHED PROJECTS TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Bergland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Baldus, Richmond, Bedell, and Madigan. Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor, counsel: William A. Imhof and John E. Hogan, associate counsels; Susan Bell, Mary Ann Fronce, and John M. Lindley, staff assistants. Representing the Watershed Planning Division, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Joseph W. Hauss, Deputy Administrator for Water Resources; accompanied by Donald B. von Wolffradt, Joseph S. Haugh, Richard D. Parker, Robert L. Caldwell, soil conservationists. CITY OF BROWNING, MONTANA Mr. BERGLAND. The Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit will come to order. This is the first of a 2-day hearing on 12 projects which have been submitted by the Soil Conservation Service across the United States. The Chair would like to point out to the subcommittee that three of these projects do not meet the criteria that have been established by committee policies of the past, those two criteria that are currently under review. The Chair agreed to bring the matters to the committee's attention because, while we have had in the past a policy that we would not approve projects that exceed $200 in benefits per acre or cost per acre, we thought it was time to review that policy of long standing. Therefore, two projects do exceed the traditional $200-per-acre limitation. The committee, at the same time, has in previous actions decided that it would approve projects only that dealt with agricultural conservation problems and practices. One of these projects contains programs that will essentially benefit a nonagricultural region in Pennsylvania. It is not the Chair's intention that we should in any way violate the committee's principles in this regard, but rather review them to see whether we want to indeed entertain such projects at this juncture. Our first witness this afternoon is a distinguished Member of the House and a friend of all of ours, the Honorable Max Baucus from the State of Montana. Mr. Baucus, you may proceed, sir. Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BERGLAND. Without objection, the statistics relevant to the city of Browning watershed project will be inserted in the record at this point. CITY OF BROWNING, MONTANA Size and location : 25,200 acres in Glacier County. Tributary to: Cut Bank Creek. Sponsors: City of Browning; Blackfeet Tribal Business Council; and Glacier County Conservation District. Total watershed land use: Grassland Forest land_ Total Total watershed privately owned: Number of ranches: 13. Size of ranches: About 1,910 acres average within the watershed. Percent 91 6 3 100 Principal Measures-Soil conservation practices on farms and ranches; and structural measures consisting of one floodwater retarding structure and two floodwater diversion structures. The total storage capacity of the retarding structure is 847 acre-feet. Benefit-cost ratio: 1.9:1 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was developed. At the federal borrowing rate on March 16, 1976, the overall B-C ratio would be 2.7:1 and without secondary benefits, it would be 2.5:1.1 Number of beneficiaries: About 219 residences and 64 commercial properties will be directly benefited by the structural measures. 1 For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention. Prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited: Not computed— Benefits primarily to a small agricultural community. 1 Supplied in accordance with subcommittee instructions. Carrying out the project: The City of Browning assumes all local responsibility for installing, operating, and maintaining the structural measures. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $3,000. USDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT1 CITY OF BROWNING WATERSHED PROJECT, GLACIER COUNTY, MONT. (Prepared in accordance with Sec. 102 (2) (C) of Public Law 91-190) I. Draft ( ). Final (X). III. Administrative (X). SUMMARY IV. Description of Action: A project for watershed protection and flood prevention in Glacier County, Montana, to be implemented under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-566, 83d Congress, 68 Stat., 666), as amended. V. Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects: Project action will: 1. reduce average annual floodwater damages in Browning by 94 percent benefiting 1,182 persons in a 92-acre urban area. 2. reduce dust from sediment deposition. 3. reduce pollution and health hazards. 4. improve community conditions and provide opportunities for urban renewal. 5. encourage park and open space development in Browning. 6. enhance fishery conditions and habitat along 11.6 miles of Willow Creek. 7. periodically provide 12 acres of water surface for waterfowl resting area. 8. create waterfowl resting area in the sediment pool. 9. create an estimated 12 man-years of new employment directly, plus secondary new employment. 10. improve social and business conditions on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. 11. result in the loss of 0.4 mile of live stream fishery and 3.1 acres of brushy habitat required for dam and 100-year sediment pool. Ssee Appendix D. 12. result in the temporary inundation of 0.3 mile of live stream fishery and 5 acres of brushy habitat required for the 100-year flood pool. 13. result in loss of agricultural production on 9 acres of hayland and 10.9 acres of rangeland required for the dam and 100-year sediment pool. 14. slightly increase air and water pollution during construction. 15. prevent interchange of fish populations along upper Willow Creek. 16. increase flows which will temporarily inundate an additional 7.1 acres of rangeland on the Flat Iron Fork drainage during a 100-year storm. VI. List of Alternatives Considered: (1) land treatment alone; (2) floodwater channel through Browning: (3) floodwater retarding structures only; (4) floodwater diversion system only; (5) flood plain insurance; (6) flood plain management; (7) combination of numbers (1), (3), (4), and (6); and (8) no project action. VII. Agencies and Individuals From Which Comments Have Been Received: Department of the Army; Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Department of the Interior; Department of Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency; Governor of Montana; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences; Montana Department of Fish and Game; Harold Scriver; Thomas E. Horobik. VIII. Draft Statement Transmitted to CEQ on November 18, 1974. 1 The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee. |