Environmental statements and water resource planning in North Carolina

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 94
Coastal Zone
Information
Center To CUM
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS AND

'Q@
WATEk RESOURCE PLANNING
COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER IN NORTH CAROLINA

By
4Me MAYNARD M. HUFSCHMIDT
Department of City and Regional Planning
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

June 1974

ReSOUP 3 e3ea h insiiiuie
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

HD
1694
N8
N6
w ler ce R PC

,I no.94

Copies available from: Water Resources Research Institute
of The University of North Carolina
124 Riddick Building
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA is comprised of the sixteen public senior institutions in North Carolina

UNC-WRRI-74-94

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS AND

WATER RESOURCE PLANNING IN NORTH CAROLINA

Maynard M. Hufschmidt
Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

The work upon which this publication is based was supported in part
by funds provided by the Office of Water Resources Research, Depart-
ment of the Interior, through the Water Resources Research Institute
of the University of North Carolina as authorized under the Water
Resources Research Act of 1964.

Project No. A-063-NC
Agreement No. 14-31-0001-3833, F. Y. 1972

June 1974

-0
property of CSC Libr&W

ACKNOWLEDGKENTS

Most of the interviewing and much of the data collection for this

study was done in the summer of 1972, with the assistance of Richard N.

L. Andrews, who had just completed his excellent study of the 1970-71 '

experience of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority,

Soil Conservation Service and Atomic Energy Commission in preparing en-

vironmental statements under provisions of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Additional data collection and background

research was done by the following graduate students in the Department of

City and Regional Planning: John Edwards, who collected and analyzed the

data on the population of environmental statements and who analyzed en-

vironmental statements prepared by the State Division of Highways; Paul

Fisher, who analyzed the Chicod Creek case; Peter Petrall, who studied

the Falls Lake project; David Morris, who made a background study of NEPA

and the Council on Environmental Quality policies and guidelines for sub-

mission of environmental statements; and Lawrence Clark who provided basic

information on activities of the Soil Conservation Service in North

Carolina.

The cooperation of many State and Federal agencies in providing in-

formation, granting interviews a-ad reviewing draft materials is gratefully

acknowledged. Special thanks are due to the staffs of Wilmington District,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, the State

Clearinghouse and Information Center, the State Division of Highways, and

the Department of Natural and Economic Resources including the Office of

Water and Air Resources.

iii

Special thanks are also due to Karl Elfers who prepared the Figures

@ . I - 7
and to Kathy Mayberry who typed this final report.

ABSTRACT

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) typifies an

important shift in national priorities and values,toward environmental

quality. In particular, the requirements in the Act for preparation of

environmental statements for major actions of the Federal Government have

forced Federal development agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of .

Engineers, Federal Highway Administration and Atomic Energy Commission,

for the first time to give detailed examination to the environmental conse-

quences of their plans and proposed projects. This national Act and the

1971 North Carolina environmental policy act have had significant conse-

quences for North Carolina water resources. Since 1971, environmental

statements have been prepared for practically all new Federal and State

project proposals in North Carolina having significant effects on water

resources. In addition, Federal water-resource agencies, including the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service and Tennessee

Valley Authority have prepared or are now preparing environmental state-

ments on projects that were authorized before the enactment of NEPA. In

accordance with procedures established by the Federal and State gover n-

ments, all draft and final environmental statements flow through a

clearance procedure that enables Federal, State and local public agencies

and citizens' groups effectively to review and comment on the statements

from their special points of view.

The environmental review and clearance procedure is working effective-
C,

ly in North Carolina. In actual operation, the procedure has resulted in

some changes in the timing and/or design of a number of water-resource

projects of the Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority and Soil

Conservation Service. In part this has been the result of suits brought

in Federal Courts by environmental and local interest groups on a few

projects--New Hope Lake, Falls Lake-and Chicod Creek. Equally significant,

the environmental statement,requirements of NEPA have led to'major changes

in agency planning procedures in which environmental factors are considered

from the earliest stages of planning, an&public participation is emphasized.

Such.changes have been made by Federal and State wate-r-resource,'highway

and nuclear power planning.agencies. Also, Federal water-re"source programs

in North Carolina have been affected indirectly; the backlog of approved

projects is being examined critically for environmental impacts,'and new

plans and programs are likely to de-emphasize stream channelization,and

major reservoir construction.

The.quality of.environmental statements prepared on projects affecting

water resources in North Carolina, initially poor, has been improving as

agencies have
gained,experience in environmental analysis.and as greater

resources, havebeen applied to the task. Further improvement is needed

however, especially in State government where the expertise available to

work on environmental review and analysis is quite limited.

The major benefits that@North Carolina has already gained from the

operation.of the environmental statement process can best be assured if the

State builds on the experience gained@and moves effectively to revise its

planning procedures, policies and institutions to incorporate environmental

,quality considerations throughout. If this is done, environmental state-

ments will become reports of successful harmonization of environmental

and developmental goals rather than indications of differences yet to

be resolved.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

SU111MARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

RECO,xJMENDAT IONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

I. THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

II. A PLANNING AND DECISION MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 19

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

IV. SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . 45

V. EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PROCESS . . . . . . . 55

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

APPENDICES: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

APPENDIX A--North Carolina Environmental Statements Affecting 97
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B--Summary of Analysis of Selected Environmental 105
Statements of the Division of Highways . . . . . . .

APPENDIX C--Chronology of Actions on Selected Water Resource
Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure II.1 A Public Investment Planning and
Decision Model with Environmental
Quality Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure III.1 North Carolina Multi-County Planning
Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure IV.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water
Resource Projects with Environmental
Statements Filed November 1970 through
January 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure IV.2 Water-Related Projects of Other Federal
Agencies with Environmental Statements
Filed November 1970 through January
1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure IV.3 North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation and Highway Safety Water-
Related Highway Projects with Environ-
mental Statements Filed November 1970
through March 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure IV.4 Water-Related Projects with Environ-
mental Statements Filed Under NCEPA
through January 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table IV.1 NEPA Environmental Statements Affecting
North Carolina Water Resources, by Sub-
mitting Agency and Type of Project,
November 1970 through January 1974 . . . . . . . . 44

Table IV.2 NEPA Environmental Statements Affecting
North Carolina Water Resources, by Year
and Month of Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table IV.3 NCEPA Environmental Statements Affecting
North Carolina Water Resources, by Sub-
mitting Agency, March 1972 through
January 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table B.1 North Carolina Highway Project Construc-
tion Components Affecting Water Resources 103-104

xiii

SU1\D1ARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in early

1970 set in motion an activity that has had great significance for water

resource planning and management throughout the nation--the preparation,

review and clearance of "environmental statements" for all Federal agency

actions which have significant effects on the liquality of the human environ-

ment." Comparable legislation in North Carolina in 1971--the North Carolina

Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA)--established almost identical requirements

for environmental statements for actions of state agencies. This report

documents and assesses the North Carolina experience since 1970 with

environmental statements as required by NEPA and NCEPA insofar as they

effect North Carolina water resources. The major findings of the report

are as follows:

1. 1.,lost environmental statements affecting North Carolina water re-

sources have been prepared un der provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA,

by a few Federal agen cies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Soil

Conservation Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, Forest Service, Atomic

Energy Commission'and the Federal Power Commission, and, for Federal-aid

highways, by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway

Safety. In both number and importance to North Carolina water resources,

environmental statements of the Corps of Engineers are dominant, reflecting

the major role that the Corps has played in water-resource development in

the state. Next in importance to water resources are the environmental

statements of the Atomic Energy Commission on a few very large nuclear

power plants (Chapter IV).

2. Because of the long delay associated with the Chicod Creek suit,

the Soil Conservation Service has filed environmental statements on only

three small watershed projects; the agency has a substantial backlog of

environmental statements in process. Because of initial uncertainty on

applicability of these NEPA requirements to the Environmental Protection

Agency, this agency has also submitted but one environmental statement in

North Carolina under its wastewater treatment grant program (Chapters IV

and V).

3. Only a small number of environmental statements affecting the

State's water resources have been prepared since March 1972 under provisions

of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971. Most of these state-

ments have originated in the Department of Natural and Economic Resources

and Wildlife Resources Commission. It appears likely that some State actions

have been taken without first preparing environmental statements as required

by NCEPA. Because of the absence of any procedure of follow-up, the extent

of these omissions is not known (Chapters IV and V).

4. The procedure for State and local clearance of both NEPA and NCEPA

environmental statements has been quite effective (1) in providing timely

information on, and access to, the statements to interested state and local

agencies and citizen groups, and (2) in providing for the assembly and

general coordination of the comments of state and regional clearinghouse

agencies, and the timely transmission of these comments to the Federal or

State agency originating the environmental statements. Especially effective

has been the centralizing of the environmental statement clearance procedure

in the Clearinghouse and Information Center, the same unit of the Department

of Administration which has responsibility for state and regional clearance

of Federal grant proposals under provisions of U.S. Office of .Management

and Budget Circular A-95 (Chapter III).

5. The bi-monthly North Carolina Environmental Bulletin of the

Clearinghouse, which lists all NEPA and NCEPA environmental statements as

filed with the Clearinghouse, serves as an excellent source of information

to interested groups and the general public. The Bulletin's coverage

could be expanded to include information on other actions of Federal

agencies on projects, including notices of public hearings, that have

environmental significance (Chapters III and IV).

6. Most Federal agencies have on their own initiative given wide

distribution in-North Carolina to both draft and final environmental

statements among local public and private agencies and groups that are

likely to be affected or to be especially interested in a specific pro-

posal. The performance of agencies on this activity has improved greatly

in the past two years. The Corps of Engineers has an especially good

record of providing access to its environmental statements (Chapters IV

and V).

7. Until recently, most environmental statements affecting North

Carolina water resources prepared under provisions of NEPA concerned

projects either under way or authorized prior to 1970. This backlog of

11pipeline" projects has now been substantially reduced (Chapter IV).

8. Since 1970, both National and State policies, as expressed in

legislation, administrative actions and court decisions, have placed great

emphasis on environmental quality values. The requirements of NEPA and

NCEPA for preparation and review of environmental statements have enabled

reconsideration by public agencies and interested groups of already committed

projects from the viewpoint of environmental quality values. In some

important cases, such as New Hope, Chicod Creek, and Mills River water

resource projects, and the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, this

reconsideration has led or may lead to major modifications in the project

to accommodate environmental values (Chapters I and V).

9. This reconsideration of projects has not been accomplished with-

out considerable strain. At the outset some agencies adopted a "wait

and see" attitude, and resisted the preparation of environmental state-

ments for projects already authorized or under construction until forced

to do so by Court action. The Chicod Creek Court case is the outstanding

example; it has become the national test case for the policy and program

of stream channelization (Chapter V).

10. As a result of the increased emphasis on environmental quality

values since 1970, Federal and State development agencies including the

Water Resources Council, Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service,

Tennessee Valley Authority, Atomic Energy Commission, and the U.S. and

North Carolina transportation agencies have revised or are revising their

procedures for planning to consider environmental quality values and

consequences from the earliest stages of their planning processes. As

these procedures become effective, the role of environmental statements

will change somewhat. No longer will it be necessary for the statements

to be used primarily as a means of assessing environmental effects of

already-formulated projects; instead, the draft and final statements will

serve more as a report to interested parties and decision-makers of agreed-

upon accommodations of environmental, developmental and other values accom-

plished during the plan formulation stage. It is clear that full consideration

of alternatives must occur well before preparation of the draft environ-

mental statement

11. Preparation, clearance and review of environmental statements

represent a substantial work load for many of the agencies involved in

the process. This has been particularly true for major projects in the

11pipeline," including projects under Court litigation. For example, the

revised draft environmental statement of the Corps of Engineers for Falls

Lake has 509 pages in the main report and 1826 pages of appendices. In

most agencies the increased work load has been handled largely by diverting

resources from other activities, although some new personnel have been

hired and additional funds for outside studies have been obtained (Chapter

V).

12. At the outset, the preparation, clearance and review of environ-

mental statements was quite perfunctory; the NEPA requirements were new

and untested and the additional work fell upon existing fully-committed

staffs. Although the quality of environmental statements and reviews

of them have gradually improved, it is clear that agencies did not apply

adequate resources to the activity, given the heavy workload involved in

preparing and analyzing environmental statements for projects in the

pipeline. As interpreted by the Courts, NEPA appears to involve nothing

less than the complete review of all outstanding projects on environmental

grounds (Chapter V).

13. There are diverse and sometimes conflicting views in State govern-

ment on the benefits and costs of the environmental statement process. On

the one hand, the environmental statement requirement is viewed positively

at top levels in the Department of Natural and Economic Resources and in

the Wildlife Resources Commission as providing a means of injecting natural

system values into the development planning and decision-making process.

On the other hand, water-resource planning and regulatory agency staffs,

while conceding the utility of environmental statements in reflecting

environmental values especially for "pipeline" projects, emphasize more

direct methods of building in environmental values in water-resource plans

and programs such as changes in the planning process to bring environmental

quality considerations into early stages of planning. At the extreme,

environmental statements are viewed as unnecessary "paper shuffling," in-

volving considerable waste of time, but apparently required because of

strict Court interpretations of NEPA. On the other hand, non-governmental

environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Conservation Council

of North Carolina, are firm supporters of environmental statements, viewing

them as providing public interest groups with a strong means of influencing

decisions affecting the environment, via administrative or court actions

(Chapter V).

14. Federal and State agencies and environmental interest groups

all welcome the trend toward consideration of environmental quality values

and effects early in the planning process. But environmental interest

groups wish to retain the current strong emphasis on preparing draft and

final environmental statements toward the end of the agency's planning

process. Some view the environmental statement as an end in itself;

others, as one tool in a multiple-objective planning process in which

there is full public participation. They view these statements as an

effective means of insuring that environmental values are given appropriate

consideration. Water-resource development agencies, however, emphasize

the importance of reconciling environmental and developmental values in

the plan formulation process so that final environmental statements become

more a reflection of the resolution of issues than of sharply opposing

viewpoints.

15. The role of environmental statements in North Carolina water-

.resource planning and POlicY7making will be affected by major changes now

being made in Federal and State water-resource planning and management.

At the Federal government level the new Water Resources Council guidelines

require all Federal water-resource development agencies to consider environ-

mental quality as a major planning objective, along with national economic

development. Also under the.1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, states and regional agencies must develop water quality plans

and implementation programs on both river basin and.urban-metropolitan

bases, under guidelines.established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

This emergence of positive planning for environmental quality of water

resources by Federal, State and regional agencies may.pre-empt or supplement

the key role of safeguarding environmental values played by NEPA environ-

ment statements during the past three years. However, continued existence

of the environmental statementrequirement will serve as an additional

force for consideration of environmental values in water-,resource planning

(Chapters I and V).

16. Prior to 1970, environmental groups had onlylimited influence on

the water-resource planning and decision process.. Since 1970 they have had

greatly increased access to the process,primarily.through review of draft

environmental statements and subsequent court action based upon NEPA

requirements for preparation of such statements. The revised planning

procedures of the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service and the

North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety provide

greatly increased access to all interested groups, including environmentalists,

via public meetings and periodic consultation throughout the planning pro-

cess. A current example is the extensive public participation in the Corps'

Crabtree Creek study. The major question here is whether these groups$

,-iven their limited resources, will be able to function effectively in

the detailed planning activities, and whether they will be encouraged to

participate in the crucial process of formulating and selecting alterna-

tives (Chapter V).

17. The quality of analysis underlying environmental statements has

improved since the first statements were hurriedly prepared in late 1970.

With few exceptions, these early statements were quite poor. State agen-

cies and environmental groups were quite critical of the quality of anal-

ysis in statements for a number of important water-resource projects, in-

cluding Chicod Creek, New Hope Lake, Clinchfield Lake and Mills River

Reservoir, and the Court has been critical of the quality of the Chicod

Creek environmental statement. A number of environmental statements on

highway projects were found to be superficial. With few exceptions, the

level of sophistication of environmental analysis in the statements and

in the reviews by state and local agencies is not high. A. need has been

expressed by State officials for a methodology for environmental review

and analysis suitable for use by State agencies.

18. Preparation, review and clearance of environmental statements

has now apparently become a routine exercise, accepted by all parties.at

PIP No.: (For Office Use Only)
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-2008

Application for Filling, Dredging or Construction of Structures under RSA Chapters 483-A and 149:8a.

PROJECT CLASS FEE FOR WETLANDS BOARD OFFICE USE ONLY

MINIMUM IMPACT $ 10.00 FEE RECEIVED Check No. Amount Init.
MINOR $ 25.00
MAJOR $100.00
FILE NUMBER

FILING FEE (CHECK OR MONEY ORDER MADE
PAYABLE TO NH WETLANDS BOARD) IS REQUIRED
TO ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION FORM TO THE
WETLANDS BOARD OFFICE.

Four (4) copies of this application are required. Three of the copies are filed with the town/city.
1. NAMEOFOWNER TELEPHONENUMBER
(Please print clearly or type)
MAILINGADDRESS

2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
(Street, road, highway) (Town, City)

tax map lot (latitude longitude
(Major projects only)

3. Complete the location map on reverse side on all copies or attach a map to each copy.
4. Adjacent to, or in (salt) (fresh) water
(Name of water body)
5. Type of project ( )Fill ( )Dredge ( )Pier ( )Other
(Specify)
6. Reason (s) for proposed construction

7. Proposed starting date Completion date
8. Contractor or Agent Telephone

3 of 4

assigned this responsibility for environmental statements prepared under

NCEPA (but not NEPA) has been largely inactive. This deficiency is part

of the larger problem facing the Governor and the Department of Administration

of developing a single State position on controversial issues covering the

full range of policies.

REGOIOUNDATIONS

1. The State should take a more positive approach toward making the

environmental statement process work, but should seek to adapt the process

to fit a broader approach which builds environmental quality into all stages

of an overall planning process. To this end:

2. The State should undertake a systematic review of all water-resource

projects authorized for construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Soil Conservation Service and the TVA which have been inactive for five years

or more to determine whether they should continue to receive State support.

The State should seek cancellation of projects considered to be obsolete;

no environmental statements should be prepared for such obsolete projects.

This review should be carried out initially by the Department of Natural

and Economic Resources.

3. The State should complete the development of a general policy on

stream channelization that represents a resolution of the conflict between

environmental and developmental objectives, to serve as a guide in the

preparation of State comments on environmental statements, and in State

participation and support of future planning of such projects by the Soil

Conservation Service and the Corps of Engineers. Similarly, the State

should complete development of policies on sedimentation especially as re-

lated to highway and building construction. The Department of Natural and

Economic Resources is the appropriate agency to develop such policies.

4. The State should implement the multiple-objective approach of the

Water Resources Council's Principles and Standards, in which the environ-

mental quality objective is considered along with the developmental objective,

in all State activities involving the planning and management of water

resources. This will require that State fishery, wildlife and conserva-

tion agencies participate effectively in the plan formulation stage of

the planning process, so that plans can be evolved which can command the

support of these agencies.

5. The State Department of Administration should conduct a study of

the overall operation of the Clearinghouse procedure so as to improve its

effectiveness in disseminating information on specific Federal actions

affecting the environment and lan d uses to State and regional agencies and

to interested non-governmental groups within the-context of the entire

problem of effective functioning of intergovernmental relations. The

Department should also study the problem of how best to reconcile diver-

gent views of state agencies and develop a single State position on Federal

projects and.actions processed through the Clearinghouse under provisions

of Circular A-95 and NEPA.

6. The State should continue its policies and improve its performance

of promoting public participation throughout the planning process in the

planning of all regional, State and Federal projects affecting water re-

sources. The Departments of Administration and Natural and Economic

Resources should be the lead agencies in this effort, and the resources

of the North Carolina Environmental Education Program should be used to

this end.

7. The State should consider establishment of a Water Resources

Council, chaired by the Secretary of Natural and Economic Resources, to

serve a coordinating function for the water-related activities of the

various departments including Agriculture, Transportation and Highway

Safety, and Human Resources as well as Natural and Economic Resources.

8. The State should encourage and support research on methodologies

and tools for environmental assessment and analysis especially as con-

cerned with water and related land resources. The capabilities of the

UNC Water Resources Research Institute and the UNC Council on Environmental

Studies should be utilized, and support should be provided to this end.

9. The State should increase its competence in environmental analy-

sis; a special unit should be established in the Department of Natural

and Economic Resources with the responsibility for developing criteria

and standards for environmental analysis and providing expert advice to

specialists on this subject.

10. The State should take immediate steps to insure that environmental

effects of major private land developments are identified and analyzed

early in the planning of these developments, so that appropriate actions

can be taken on a timely basis to safeguard environmental values. Appropri-

ate legislation, if needed, should be sought from the next Legislature.

11. The State Department of Administration should conduct a study of

how the environmental analysis planning and policy responsibilities now

located in the State Planning Division and the Department of Natural and

Economic Resources can be effectively coordinated with the land use

planning and policy responsibilities for the Coastal Plain as recently

enacted by the Legislature, and with similar responsibilities for the

Mountain Region which will be considered by the next Legislature. In this

connection, it is especially important that State and regional water-

resource planning activities be effectively coordinated with the emerging

land use planning and policy activities.

CHAPTER'I

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY SETTING

The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

ushered in a new era of national development policy and practice. It

represented the adoption as national policy of an environmental quality

objective to be considered along with the well-established objectives of

economic growth, economic stability and full employment in national de-

cision-making. Above all, one provision of the Act, Section 102(2)(C)

was to have a major effect on water-resource planning and development-,,

especially but not exclusively at the Federal Government level. This

Subsection called on all agencies of the Federal Government to:

Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation and other major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed
statement by the responsible official on--

M The environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented,

(iii) Alternatives to the proposed action,

(iv) The relationship between local short-term uses
of man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and

(v) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of resources which would be involved in the pro-
posed action should it be implemented.

Subsection 102(2)(C) further provided that:

Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible
Federal official shall consult with and obtain the
comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction
by law or special expertise with respect to any environ-
mental impact involved. Copies of such statement and
the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State,

and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and en-
force environmental standards, shall be made available to
the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to
the public as-provided by section 552 of title 5, United
States Code, and shall accompany the proposal through the
existing agency review processes.

As it turned out, this requirement for statements has led to a re-

view and analysis to this end of most currently active U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service and TVA water-resource projects

that were not already under construction by January 1970. After some

administrative and legal testing of the requirements of Section 102(2)(C),

it became apparent that these provisions of the Act were being interpreted

broadly by the Congress, the Executive Branch and the Courts (Anderson,

1973, pp. 275-292). Accordingly, the Federal water-resource agencies,

as well as other Federal agencies such as the Department of Transportation

and the Atomic Energy Commission whose activities impinge on water resources,

prepared detailed procedures and established major work programs to meet

the requirements for preparing, circulating and revising draft and final

environmental statements on most current, outstanding project proposals,

as well as on all new proposals generated by their on-going planning pro-

cesses (Andrews, 1972; U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 1973, pp.

234-251).

Along with a number of other states, North Carolina in 1971 passed

an Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) (N.C. Council on State Goals and

Policy, 1972), closely patterned after the National Act. The North Carolina

Act provides that State agencies include "in every recommendation or re-

port on proposals for legislation and actions involving expenditure of

public moneys for projects and programs significantly affecting the quality

of the environment of this State," a detailed statement by the responsi-

ble official covering the same five points contained in Section 102(2)(C)

of NEPA, plus one other involving mitigation measures proposed to mini-

mize the (adverse environmental) impact. NCEPA also provides that before

completing such detailed statement, the responsible official consult with

and obtain comments from any agency with jurisdiction by law or special

expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of

detailed statements and comments are to be made available to the Governor,

to agencies designated by him, to regional clearinghouses, and, upon re-

quest, to the public and to counties, municipalities, institutions and

individuals. NCEPA further authorizes cities, counties and towns to re-

quire submission of such environmental statements by any special purpose

unit of government and private developer of a "major development project,"

(which is defined as including without limitation "shopping centers, sub-

divisions and other housing developments, and industrial and commercial

projects," but excluding any projects of less than two contiguous acres

in extent). Although the 1971 Act was scheduled to expire in 1973, the

Legislature extended the life of the Act to 1977.

The overall effect of the Federal and State legislative provisions

for environmental statements insofar as North Carolina water resources are

concerned is practically to insure that no major public or private action

that has a significant effect on any of the State's water resources can

be taken prior to a review and analysis of beneficial and detrimental

effects on the resources in their many dimensions of environmental quali-

ty as viewed by many different public and private agencies and groups.

The requirements of NEPA and NCEPA for preparation of environmental

statements have been superimposed on the established Federal, State and

local water-resource planning, development and policy structure in North

Carolina. The disparate nature of North Carolina water-resource planning

has been recently documented (Moreau, 1973, Chapters I and II). According

to Moreau, state water-resource planning has been institutionally and

functionally fragmented into surface water, ground water, coastal waters,

water quantity and water quality--all in relative isolation to land use

planning. Statewide planning has been narrow in perspective, reactive to

initiatives of the Federal Government and the private sector, and of

-relatively low visibility. Most water-resource developments have been

planned and executed either by Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and the TVA for major water projects, and the Soil

Conservation Service for small watershed projects, or by local agencies--

cities and towns--whose main concern is with relatively small-scale water

supply and sewage treatment projects.

The injection of the NEPA and NCEPA requirements for environmental

statements into the water-resource planning and policy setting in North

Carolina has brought to the fore a number of problems and issues that will

be explored in the Chapters to follow. In assessing the North Carolina

experience with environmental statements, it will be helpful to make use

of a planning and decision model that combines water-resource planning

with planning for environmental quality, as described in the next chapter.

CHAPTER II

A PLANNING AND DECISION MODEL

The principles and practices of water-resource planning at the

Federal Government level are based on the so-called rational planning

process as expounded in the literature of public investment and planning

theory. As summarized in the basic report of the Harvard Water Program.

Claass et al.., 1962), the process consists of four sequential steps:

(1) establishing objectives;

(2) translating objectives into planning criteria;

(3) formulating "best" plans in accordance with the criteria;

(4) evaluating consequences of plans so formulated.

At least since the Water Resources Council adopted and the President

approved the water-resource planning guidelines in 1962 (President's

Water Resources Council, 1962), all Federal water-resource planning and

development agencies have had a common basis for applying the rational

planning process in their planning and development activities. Although

these guidelines gave some recognition to the objective of preserving

natural resources, primary emphasis was on national and regional develop-

ment in the context of the national economic efficiency objective. As

environmental quality became more and more highly valued during the 1960's,

however, a number of studies of the Water Resources Council reflected this

shift in values and led toward proposed revisions of the 1962 guidelines

that gave greater emphasis to environmental values. Thus , by the time

that NEPA was enacted in late 1969, the Water Resources Council had al-

ready incorporated an environmental quality objective in its preliminary

drafts of revised principles and standards for water-resource planning

(Water Resources Council, 1971). After undergoing an extensive and de-

tailed review, which included a series of public hearings held by the

Water Resources Council throughout the nation, these revised principles

and standards were approved by the President and took effect on October

25, 1973 (Water Resources Council, 1973). These newly-adopted guide-

lines for Federal water-resource planning establish two primary national

objectives, (1) economic development and (2) environmental quality;

furthermore, separate systems of accounts and sets of standards are

specified for each of these objectives. Accordingly, all Federal water-

resource planning studies in the future are required to incorporate

consideration of environmental quality objectives, values and consequences

throughout the entire planning process, from the very beginning of work

to the completion of studies and preparation of the final planning report.

It is clear, therefore, that the new water-resource planning guidelines

promote one of the purposes of Sections 102(2)(A) and (B) of NEPA that

environmental quality values and impacts be taken into account throughout

the planning process and not merely after alternatives have been con-

sidered and a final plan has been adopted. In fact, all Federal water-

resource agencies are now reviewing their planning procedures to bring

them into conformity with the new Water 'Resources Council guidelines,

including especially the provisions relating to the treatment of environ-

mental quality elements and values.

The current, evolving relationship between Federal water-resource

planning and environmental quality can be illustrated by means of a gen-

eralized public investment planning and decision model that incorporates

environmental quality. As shown on the left-hand side of Figure II.1,

environmental quality considerations are introduced in the very first

step of the process depicted by the model--problem definition--and are

included in each subsequent step.

Only the bare bones of this model are presented in Figure II.l.

Detailed formulations of water-resource planning in urban-metropolitan

settings and of comprehensive metropolitan planning are contained in

two 1971 reports by this author (Hufschmidt, 1971 a and 1971 b). Prob-

lems and issues of adopting environmental quality as a policy and planning

objective were treated by the author in a 1971 article (Hufschmidt, 1971 c),

while a land use guidance system planning process that incorporates en-

vironmental values was developed by Kaiser and others in a recent study

commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (Kaiser, et al., 1974).

In addition, the National Water Commission explored the issues of multi-

objective water-resource planning in its recent report (National Water

Commission, 1973, Chapter 10).

The major point here is that theoretical formulations of the planning

process that incorporate environmental considerations are reasonably well

developed in a number of different contexts: public investment, urban-

metropolitan water resources, comprehensive metropolitan planning, and

land use planning and guidance. Although the formulations differ as to

details, they are in agreement on fundamentals. The formulations are also

consistent with evolving planning practice in the field of water resources

as reflected in the new Water Resources Council guidelines. It is realis-

tic, therefore, to use the model depicted in Figure II.1 as a basis for

analyzing North Carolina experience with environmental statements, inasmuch

as both theory and practice are moving in this direction.

Environmental
quality problems, Perception and definition of problem, need,
needs and oppor- or opportunity.
tunities perceived
and defined

Specification of basic objectives: e-9. economic
-En-vi-ron-me-nt-al- development, equitable distribution of income and
I quality objective opportunity, regional development, environmental
specified I quality, health and safety.

-C r-i t -er i-a -an d-
standards for
evaluating Development of planning principles, guides,
environmental standards and criteria appropriate to the basic
quality effects objectives and the problems, needs, or opportunities.
developed

Basic studies of
environmental
quality status
undertaken, and Basic physical, economic and social studies and
plans formulated analyses and formulation of alternative plans
to achieve and programs that contribute toward the various
environmental objectives in varying degrees.
quality objec-
tives to
varying degrees

Environmental
quality effects
or "impacts" of Review and evaluation of alternative plans by
plans weighed decision-makers and special and general publics;
in relation to adoption of a plan or combination of plans or
effects on return of plans for further work.
other objectives

Action program Formulation and adoption of action program to
for environ- carry out the approved plan. Includes legislation,
mental quality budget, administrative organization, regulation,
formulated and research, further planning, public information.
adopted

Figure II.1 A Public Investment Planning and Decision
Model With Environmental Quality Relationships

In contrast to this future-oriented approach, up to now most NEPA-

mandated environmental statements have been prepared only after a plan

has been formulated. This is largely because many environmental state-

ments prepared in the first three years of operation under NEPA have been

either for projects already planned or well along in planning. However,

environmental statements have now been completed or are being completed

for most currently active projects and planning studies that were in the

11pipeline" in 1970. Thus, for most future environmental statements for

Federal water resource plans and proposals, it is reasonable to expect

that the information and planning groundwork for environmental quality

will have been well established in accordance with the Water Resources

Council Planning guidelines, prior to preparation of draft or final

environmental statements.

The situation is similar for other investment programs that involve

Federal aid or Federal regulation. Thus, for Federally-aided highway

projects and for nuclear power plants which requite Federal licenses,

environmental statements have been completed for most projects and pro-

posals that were in the pipeline in 1970. Furthermore, the Federal High-

way Administration, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and

Highway Safety, and the Atomic Energy Commission have developed procedures

to incorporate environmental quality considerations in early stages of

their planning processes.

EVALUATION OF GREAT MARSH POND COMPLEX

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Prepared by Randall V. Cole
Fish and Wildlife Scientist

August 1991

QH
541.5
S24 through Federal Grant from the office of Coastal Zone
C65 ent, NOAA under provision of Section 306 of the Coastal
1991 Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended.

staffs to use these established facilities for the processing of environ-

mental statements.

As pointed out by Mogulof (1971), the purpose of Circular A-95 was

to set up a "network of state, regional and metropolitan planning and

development clearinghouses to receive and disseminate information about

proposed projects; to coordinate between applicants for federal assistance;

to act as a liaison between federal agencies contemplating federal develop-

ment projects; and to conduct an evaluation of the state, regional or

metropolitan significance of federal or federally assisted projects."

Circular A-95 represented a rationalization of a loose system of

local, regional and state clearance of information on Federal actions

that had evolved during the 1960's as the number and magnitude of Federal

programs affecting State and local governments expanded manyfold. As

early as 1966, Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan

Development Act called for all applications for loans and grants in a

number of Federal programs to be submitted for review to any areawide

planning agency which was designated to perform metropolitan or regional
planning for the area*within w.hich the assistance was to be used (Brussat,

1973). The U.S. Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and

Budget) was given responsibility for developing the regulations for im-

plementing Section 204.

This requirement was reinforced by Title IV of the Intergovernmental

Cooperation Act of 1968 which called for improved coordination of Federal

aid programs with the plans and objectives of State, regional and local

agencies and governments, and directed the President to establish appropriate

rules and regulations to this end (Brussat 1973). Budget Circular A-95

was the Federal government's response to these two legislative initiatives.

As reported by Wise (1971):

Part I requires that state and areawide clearinghouses be
notified by potential applicants for certain federal grants
of their intent to apply, and that the clearinghouses and
interested agencies and governmental units within the clear-
inghouse jurisdiction have an-opportunity to consult with
the applicant and attach comments to the proposal. These
comments are only for the information of the federal fund-
ing agency and do not constitute veto over the proposal.
The decision as to whether the applicant receives the grant
requested is made 'by the federal agency. A-95 review is
now applicable to some 100 programs in the planning and
phy sical and social development areas.

Part II provides for consultation between state and local
officials and federal agencies planning direct development
projects within their jurisdictions. These projects in-
clude construction of federal installations, public works,
buildings, and the acquisition, use, and disposal of federal
land and real property.

Part III makes provision for gubernatorial review of federally-
required state plans before submission to the federal agency.

Part IV encourages gubernatorial designation of sub-state
planning and development districts to provide consistent
geographic base for the coordination of federal, state,
and local development programs.

Application to North Carolina

North Carolina put Budget Circular A-95 into effect in December 1969

by setting up a State Clearinghouse and Information Center in the State

Planning Division of the Department of Administration, to receive and cir-

culate documents to be generated under Part I of A-95. Part IV of A-95

envisaged a pattern of regional and metropolitan clearinghouse agencies,

generally organized as Councils of Governments, that would review and

comment on local applications for Federal aid. In part to meet this need,

Governor Scott on May 7, 1970 established 17 multi-county regions, together

covering the entire State, to provide the basis for regional clearing-

houses. These regions were superimposed on an existing pattern of regions,

with different boundaries in some cases, but the intent was to adjust

boundaries over time so that a single set of consistent regions would

emerge. Thus by March 1971, seven regional clearinghouses had been desig-

nated on the new basis; an additional four were designated by June 1971,

and, by October 1973 all 17 regional agencies had been designated as

clearinghouses. Thus, the pattern of multi-county regions, as shown in

Figure III.1, has become recognized as the basic system for regional co-

ordination and Dlanning in North Carolina.

A manual of procedures for A-95 project notification and review was

issued in March 1971 by the State Clearinghouse and Information Center

(N.C. State Clearinghouse Procedures Manual, 1971) to guide the State

and regional clearinghouses in carrying out their activities under Part

I of A-95. This manual was substantially revised and reissued in January

1974, to reflect changes in the provisions of Budget Circular A-95 (N.C.

State Clearinghouse and Information Center, 1974).

This State and regional clearinghouse pattern was just becoming estab-

lished in North Carolina when the CEQ guidelines for implementing NEPA pro-

vided that State review of environmental statements for Federal actions be

handled through the State Clearinghouse procedures established under Part I

of A-95 (Council on Environmental Quality, Interim Guidelines, April 30, 1970,

and Guidelines, January 22, 1971). Accordingly, since late 1970 all Federal

environmental statements have been processed through the State Clearinghouse

and Information Center. Following enactment of the North Carolina Environ-

mental Policy Act of 1971, the processing of environmental statements on

FIGURE M I

NORTH CAROLINA MULTI-COUNTY PLANNING REGIO

-1

Established By Executive Order

Robert W. Scott

Governor Of North Carolina

May 7,1970

State actions mandated by the Act was also assigned to the State Clearing-

house (111orth Carolina Council on State Goals and Policy, 1972). Thus, since

February 1972, the State Clearinghouse (and the relevant regional clearing-

houses) have responsibility for processing State, loc al and regional agency

comments on all Federal projects and other actions covered by provisions of

Budget Circul ar A-95 and by Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, and all State actions

covered by NCEPA.@

A related action that was to have significance for State environmental

statements was the creation of the North Carolina Council on State Goals

and Policy. Acting on a proposal by Governor Scott, the 1971 session of

the North Carolina Legislature established this Council in the Department

of Administration (N.C. Council on State Goals and Policy Act of 1971).

This Council, composed of 15 citizen members, appointed for four-7ear terms

with the Governor as Chairman, has broad responsibilities for proposing

State goals and for recommending ways for State government to achieve these

goals and to serve the interest of all citizens. Among the specific respon-

sibilities of the Council are:

(1) to suggest short-run goals which should receive priority
over the next three to five years,

(2) to evaluate the present structure and activities of State
government and to recommend improvements,

(3) to identify areas of urgent need or inadequacies in present
policies, and to recommend appropriate analyses for evalu-
ating alternative.courses of action, and

(4) to@inform the citizens of the State's major problems, and
involve the citizenry in study and debate of State goals
and policy.

The Act provided that necessary staff services for the Council would

be provided by the Department of Administration. The Council and its staff

thus provided a convenient means for achieving resolution of policy con-

flicts among State and regional agencies that might arise incident to

the preparation and review of State environmental statements. As described

below, the Council on State Goals and Policy plays an overall review and

coordination role concerning environmental statements for State projects

analogous to the role played by the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality

for Federal projects.

Activities of the Clearinghouse

The Clearinghouse is the officially-designated agency to receive

copies of draft or final environmental statements from Federal and State

agencies under the provisions of NEPA and NCEPA. It is the responsibility

of the Clearinghouse to refer copies of the statements to appropriate

State agencies and to the appropriate regional clearinghouse for review

and comment, and to transmit comments when received to the originating

Federal or State agency. The Clearinghouse also is responsible for keep-

ing the general public currently informed of the existence of environ-

mental statements and for providing ready access to them.

The details of the clearance procedure will be discussed at length

below. With respect to responsibility for public information, the Clear-

inghouse publishes the semi-monthly North Carolina Environmental Bulletin,

which contains brief descriptions of all environmental statements filed

with the Clearinghouse. Any North Carolina resident may receive the

Bulletin regularly at no cost. 'The first issue of the Bulletin was dated

February 1, 1972, and as of May 1, 1974, a total of 297 statements had

been reported in the Bulletin. All environmental statements listed in

the Bulletin are available for public inspection, during regular office

hours, in the Clearinghouse offices in downtown Raleigh. In addition,
copies may also be inspected by the-public at the appropriate regional

clearinghouse offices. The Clearinghouse also reproduces copies of en-

vironmental statements, where practicable, at nominal cost, upon receipt

of written requests. By means of the Bulletin, ready public access to

the statements, and provision for their reproduction, the Clearinghouse

provides timely and effective dissemination of information to the in-

terested public.

Clearance Procedures

Procedures for clearance of environmental statements under provisions

of NEPA and NCEPA are basically the same. The procedure for clearance

of NEPA-mandated statements will first be outlined; the special features

of clearance of statements under NCEPA will then be presented.

A. Federal Projects -A typical Federal water-resource project pro-

pQsal of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be processed through the

State Clearinghouse as follows:

1. Draft Environmental Statement. Upon completion of a draft

environmental statement for the project proposal, the applicable U.S. Army

District Engineer sends copies of the statement to the Clearinghouse (as

well as'to the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality and to other Federal,

State and local agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to

provide comments), with a request for comments within 45 days. The Clear-

inghouse sends copies of the statement, where necessary, to all State

agencies that have indicated an interest in proposals of the Corps of

Engineers, and to the regional clearinghouse(s) in whose area the proposed

project is located, with a req uest for comments to be returned in time

for the Clearinghouse to forward comments to the District Engineer within

the 45-day period.

2. Review and Comment. Upon completion of their review, State

agencies and the regional clearinghouse(s) send their comments to the

Clearinghouse. Regional clearinghouse(s) also send their comments directly

to the District Engineer. The various offices in the State Department of

Natural and Economic Resources--including the Office of Water and Air

Resources, Earth Resources, Recreation Resources, Forest Resources, and

Fisheries and Wildlife Resources--first send their comments to the Depart-

ment of Natural and Economic Resources. The individual comments are co-

ordinated, conflicts and inconsistencies are eliminated where necessary,

and a single Departmental position is prepared for submission to the

Clearinghouse.

3. Disposition of Comments. The comments of State agencies (or

asummary of them) are sent by the Clearinghouse to the appropriate District

Engineer within the specified 45-day period; copies are sent also to the

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, as required by CEQ Guidelines, and

to the appropriate regional clearinghouse(s) for information. The District

Engineer considers these comments, along with comments received from

regional clearinghouses and other local and Federal.agencies, in preparing

a final environmental statement.

4. Final Environmental Statement. Upon completion of a final

environmental statement (typically several months after receipt of comments

on the draft statement), the District Engineer sends copies to'the Clear-

inghouse (as well as to CEQ and to other interested agencies). The final

statement typically includes specific information on how agency comments

have been taken into account in the revision of the draft statement; in

addition, the regional, state and Federal agency comments are typically

reproduced in full in an appendix to the statement.

5. Action on Final Statement. Notice of receipt by the State

Clearinghouse of the final environmental statement is carried in the next

issue of the Environmental Bulletin. State and regional agencies that

wish to comment on the final statement send these comments direct to the

District Engineer, as well as to CEQ, within the 30-day deadline estab-

lished by CEQ for comments on final statements.

6. Final Disposition. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers files

with the CEQ all regional, state and federal agency comments on the final

statement along with its c omments, if any. This final referral to CEQ

meets the statutory requirements of NEPA as spelled out in the CEQ Guide-

lines, and clears the way for the Corps to proceed with further action on

the project proposal.

B. State Projects--Procedure for clearance of environmental state-

ments on State projects is closely patterned after the procedure for

Federal projects, with some modifications, however, to account for the

fact that the State is the central figure (N.C. Council on State Goals

and Policy, 1972).

A typical water-resource project of the Office of Water and Air

Resources would be processed through the State Clearinghouse, as follows:

1. Environmental Statement. Upon completion of an environmental

statement, the "responsible official" of the Office of Water and Air Resources

sends it to the State Clearinghouse through the Assistant Secretary for

Resource Management, Department of Natural and Economic Resources. The

Clearinghouse sends the statement, with request for comments, to

(a) all State agencies with jurisdiction or expertise;

(b) regional clearinghouse for review and concurrence
by local governments and public notice;

In addition, a summary of the statement is published in the semi-monthly

Environmental Bulletin to inform the'general public.

2. Review and Comment. Upon completion of their reviews, State

and local agencies and the regional clearing house submit comments to the

.Clearinghouse which summarizes these comments along with comments from

the public and sends the summary report to the Department of Natural and

Economic Resourc6s. This process of dissemination, review and comment

is to be completed in 30 days.

3. Disposition by Initiating Agency. The "responsible official"

of the Office of Water and Air Resources (or, alternatively, of the parent

Department of Natural and Economic Resources), after a review of the comments,

determines:

(a) to approve the project and to notify the State
Clearinghouse of intention to undertake the
project, if further review of the project is
not recommended by the staff of the Council on
State Goals and Policy (CSGP) within seven days,
or;

(b) to forward to the State Clearinghouse a request
for the CSGP to review the project to resolve
any environmental issues that have arisen during
the agency review process, or;

4. Action by State Clearinghouse. Based on the nature of action

in Step 3, above, the State Clearinghouse:

(a) sends the original (or revised) environmental
statement to the CSGP, along with information
on the 'initiating agency's intent to proceed
with the project, or;

(b) sends the original (or revised) environmental
statement to the CSGP with the initiating
agency's request for CSGP review, or;

5. CSGP Action. The CSGP staff screens all environmental state-

ments received from the State Clearinghouse., If the staff determines that

CSGP review is warranted, either from its own analysis or because of a

request from the initiating agency, the staff notifies the "responsible

official" of the initiating agency within seven days. If no such review

is considered warranted, the staff takes no action and the initiating

agency is free to proceed with the project sev,en days after CSGP was

notified of the agency's intention.to proceed.

6. CSGP and Governor's Action. The CSGP recommends that environ-

mental statements either (1) be approved,,(2) be returned to the State

Clearinghouse for further agency review and comment, or (3) be disapproved.

The State Clearinghouse and the initiating agency are notified of the

action. Project proposals recommended for disapproval are sent to the

Governor. Notification of the Governor's decision is sent to CSGP, the

State Clearinghouse and the initiating agency.

It should be noted that as of April 1974 the State Clearinghouse,is

no longer identified as a separate organizational unit but has been absorbed

into the new Office of Intergovernmental Relations in the Department of

Administration.

Federal-State-Local Water Resource Activities

Only a brief summary is given here of the complex pattern of Federal,

State and local activities relating to water-resource planning, develop-

ment and management as they relate to North Carolina. Al though each of

these three basic activities is undertaken to some extent at each level

of government, the major emphasis is at the Federal and local governmental

levels. Historically, planning and development of navigation works on

rivers and harbors, and of major river systems for navigation, flood co n-

trol, hydroelectric power and other purposes has been a Federal government

function. So also has been licensing of non-Federal power developments

affecting navigable waters, collection and analysis of basic hydrologic

and climatologic data involving streams and coastal waters, planning and

technical assistance for erosion control and for small watershed develop-

ments in rural, agricultural areas. More recently, the Federal government

has taken leadership in both regulation of the quality of the nation's

waters and in the financing of publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants.

Cities, towns and other local units of government continue to have

primary responsibility for planning, developing and managing facilities

for water supply, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal, and for

regulation of land uses, especially as these are related to flood plain

occupancy, water supplies and water quality.

The State of North Carolina historically has been responsible for

regulating private and local governmental activities relating to water

pollution control. In recent years, encouraged in part by Federal

initiatives, the State has broadened its regulatory activities and

greatly expanded its planning activities with respect to a wide range

of concerns for surface and ground water resources. It has also initiated

a program of capital grants to local governments for water supply and

sewage treatment works.,

Agencies of the Federal Government. The agencies of the Federal

Government of significance to North Carolina water resources include:

@ (1) Basic resource data and research agencies. The Geological Survey

in the Department of the Interior collects and analyzes basic surface and

ground water data on both quantity and chemical quality. The National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency in the Department of Commerce collects and

analyzes climatological data and basic physical data on marine, coastal

and estuarine waters. The Office of Water Resources Research in the

Department of the Interior provides grants through a network of State

water research centers and direct to other research agencies for basic

and applied research on water-resource problems.

(2) Planning and development agencies. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers has primary responsibility for the planning, development and

regulation of navigable waters, including North Carolina harbors, estuarine

zones and navigable streams, and,also has extensive planning, development

and management functions for beach erosion, and for flood control, water-

based recreation, water supply and other purposes on all North Carolina

river systems with the exception of the Tennessee basin. The Soil Conservation

Service in:the Department of Agriculture has responsibilities for helping

local small watershed agencies plan and develop watershed programs typically

involving -land trea'tment-tbr erosion control, flood retarding structures

and.,channelization of-stream@. The TennesseeValley Authority (TVA) since

1933 hag carried out:,a comprehensive, basin-wide plan and program for

multiple-pur@pose rive.r development in the Tennessee River basin, a portion

of which lies in western North Carolina.

(3) Regulatory agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

was established in 1971 in 'part to carry'out the water pollution control

responsibilities of the Federal government. This ag ency has broad regulatory

authority, operating primarily but not exclusively-through the States, on

ambient water quality of all streams, lakes and estuarie's and on discharges

of pollutants into these waters. EPA al'so'has basic data, research, and

planning functions relating to water quality, as well as the administration

of the massive construction grants program :for publicly-owned wastewater

treatment plants. The@Federal Power Commission has licensing authority

for all non-Federal hydroelectric power facilities on navigable waters; it

also has hydroelectric power'planning functions in cooperation with other

Federal agencies. The Atomic Energy Commission has licensing authority

for all nuclear power plants, including the authority in conjunction with

EPA to rule on the water use and water quality features of the plants.

As indicated above, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has significant

regulatory authority over navigable waters.

(4) Related agencies. The Forest Service in the Department of Agri-

culture has water-resource planning, development and management functions

in the national forests of North Carolina, and participates with the Soil

Conservation Service in small watershed planning and technical assistance

where forestry issues are important. The Farmers Home Administration of

the Department of Agriculture provides construction grants for small

water supply facilities in rural areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service

of the Department of the Interior has research, planning, management

and grant-in-aid responsibilities for fish and wildlife resources, on

both publicly and privately owned lands and waters. The Bureau of_

Outdoor Recreation, also in the Department of the Interior, has planning

and grant-in-aid responsibilities for outdoor recreation and open space

lands, many of which are closely related to rivers, lakes and estuaries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, under provisions of the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, is concerned with the wise planning

and development of the coastal and estuarine zones of North Carolina.

The Coastal Zone Regional Commission has planning and development programs

that affect the water resources of the coastal zone of North Carolina as

well as of South Carolina and Georgia. The Appalachian Regional Commission

has planning and grant-in-aid programs that often have important relation-

ships to the water resources of the mountain region of western North

Carolina. Finally, the Federal flood insurance program in the Department

of Housing and Urban Development is an important element in the Federal

program of flood control aid to local areas.

(5) Coordinating agencies. The water resource activities of the

Federal government are coordinated by the Water Resources Council, which

has representation from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,

Interior, Health, Education and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development,

and Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal

Power Commission. The Council coordinates the water-resource policy and

planning activities of the Federal agencies, in part through regional

river basin agencies. As noted in Chapter II, the Council was responsi-

ble for developing the revised wat6r-resource principles and standards

approved by the President in October 1973 as a guide for use by all

Federal agencies. The Council also administers a program of grants to

State water-resource agencies for water-resource planning.

Further information on the current pattern of federal activities in

water resources is contained in the recent report of the National Water

Commission (1972).

State government agencies. Since the 1971 basic reorganization of

Nort'a Carolina State government into 17 major departments, most of the

water-resource related activities of State government are located in the

Department of Natural and Economic Resources (Harton, The State of Water-

Resource @Management in North Carolina, 1972). Within this Department, in

turn, most water-resource planning, regulation and management activities

are the responsibility of a 13-member citizen Board of Water and Air

Resources and the associated Office of Water and Air Resources. The basic

inventory and general planning functions are carried out by the Planning

Division of this Office; a State Water Plan is well under way. Detailed

water quality monitoring, planning,.regulation and programing of Federal

and State construction grants for wastewater treatment works are responsi-

bilities of the Water Quality Division. Detailed investigation, planning,

regulation and programing of navigation, flood control and beach erosion

activities are assigned to the Waterways and Seashore Division, which works

closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on these matters. The Ground

Water Division is responsible for investigations, detailed planning, regu-

lation and manaaement of ground water resources of the State. The Office

of Water and Air Resources has close working relationships with the U.S.

Geological Survey with respect to basic surface and ground water data;

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with respect to water quality;

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with respect to beach erosion con-

trol, navigation, flood control and multiple purpose river basin planning

and development; and with the U.S. Water Resources Council with respect to

overall water resources planning.

Other Offices of the Department of Natural and Economic Resources

with important water-related responsibilities are the Office of Earth

Resources and Office of Fisheries and Wildlife Resources. The State Soil

and Water Conservation Committee, a unit of the Office of Earth Resources,

is responsible for the State's planning, programing and review functions

under the cooperative small watershed program of the U.S. Soil Conserva-

tion Service and-local watershed districts. The Office of Fisheries and

Wildlife Resources, along with the largely independent Wildlife Resources

Commission is concerned with the relationships of North Carolina water

resources to fish and wildlife, including both the use of water resources

to promote fish and wildlife values and the impact of water-resource develop-

ments for other purposes on fish and wildlife resources.

The Assistant Secretary for Resource Management in the Department of

Natural and Economic Resources has a responsibility for general coordination

of the Department's resource management activities, including the development

of a single Departmental position on environmental statements sent to the

Department for review. With respect to water resources, this coordinating

function serves to harmonize, where possible, the often diverse views of

the Office of Water and Air Resources, the Wildlife Resources Commission

and the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee.

At this'writing (June 1974) the Department of Natural and Economic

Resources is under reorganization; it appears likely that the reorganiza-
tion will be along functional'lines so that, for exdmp ,le, planning for

various natural resources will be brought together in one major admini-

strative unit and management and regulation in another major unit.

Significant water-related activities outside the Department of

Natural and Economic Resources are located in the Departments of Human

Resources, Commerce and Transportation and Highway Safety. In the

Department of Human Resources, the Sanitary Engineering Division of the

State Board of Health has regulatory authority over the public health

aspects of all central water supply and all sewerage systems, and of the

State's water resources generally. The State 'Utilities Commission in

the Department of Administration has regulatory authority over all pri-

vately-owned utility systems including gas and electric power; for the

latter, water quality considerations are especially important. The

State Ports Authority in the Department of Transportation and Highway

Safety has both regulatory and development responsibilities for North

Carolina ports, including Wilmington and Morehead City, and works closely

wi th the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on port.navigation matters.

In addition, the Department of Administration, through its State

Planning Commission and Marine Sciences Council has general concerns for

the reciprocal relationships of water resources to economic growth, regional

development, urbanization, and land use, especially in the mountain and

coastal zones of the State.

From the above, it is evident that there exists a complex and changing

administrative structure at the Federal, State and local levels within

which planning and decisions on water-resource matters are handled and

within which the environmental statement requirements of NEPA are carried

out. It is not possible in this brief report to deal adequately with many

of the complex interactions that are involved as environmentalstatements

move through the communication channels of this structure. But the above

discussion of the general outlines of this structure should be helpful in

understanding the report of North Carolina. experience with environmental

statements in the chapters that follow.

CHAPTER IV

SUMKARY ANALYSIS OF ENVIRON14ENTAL STATEMENTS

As reported in Chapter III, it was May 1970 when the Council on

Environmental Quality issued its first guidelines to Federal agencies

covering.the environmental statement requirements of Section 102(2)(C)

of NEPA. It was not until November 1970, however', that the first environ-

-mental statement on a proposed action affecting North Carolina.water

resources was filed with the State Government. Since that time, 104

water-resource related environmental statements have be en filed under

provisions ofNEPA up to February 1, 1974. By that.date, an additional

ten statements affecting North Carolina water resources have been filed

under provisions of the North Carolina Envrionmental Quality Act of 1971.

As discussed earlier in Chapter III, NEPA environmental statements

are typically prepared and reviewed first in draft form and then revised

on the basis of the first review and circulated again for review and

clearance in final form. A third type of report, a 11 negative declaration,"

filed by the Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transporta-

tion and Highway Safety (formerly the North Carolina State Highway Commis-

sion), consists of a brief statement of reasons why a proposed action is

held to have no "significant effects on the human environment." Thus,

with few exceptions, each proposed Federal project or action has two environ-

mental statements--a draft and a final version; or, alternatively, there

is a single "negative declaration." These terms will be used throughout

the discussion to follow.

As shown in Table IV-1, the Corps of Engineers is the largest single

producer of NEPA environmental statements affecting water resources in

,TABLE IV-1

NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS AFFECTING
NORTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES, BY SUBMITTING
AGENCY AND TYPE OF PROJECT, NOVEMBER 1970-JANUARY 1974
Agency Type of Statement
Draft Final Total
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:,
Navigation 10 9 19
Beach erosion and hurricane protection l' 2 3
.Multiple purpose reservoirs 6 2 8
Flood control 4 4 8

Total, Corps of Engineers 21 17 38

Tennessee Valley Authority:
Multiple purpose reservoirs 1 0 1
Management of lands and water 2 1 3

Total, TVA 3 1 4

U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Small watershed projects 2 2 4

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Nuclear power plants 5 4 9

U.S. Federal Power Commission:
Hydro power projects 4 1 5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 0 1

U.S. Forest Service
Forest management programs 5 6 11

Other U.S. agencies, miscellaneous projects 6 3 9

N.C. State Department of Transportation and
Highway Safety:
Federally-aided highways with significant
water-resource effectsi 10 13 23

TOTAL 57 47 104

Through March 30, 1973 only; in addition, 58 draft and final statements
and negative declarations with incidental water-resource effects were
filed through March 30, 1973.

North Carolina, with 38 of the total of 104 statements. Although the

North Carolina State Department of Transportation and Highway Safety
(acting for the U.S. Department of Transportation)' has filed the largest

number of NEPA environmental statements (and negative declarations) of

any agency (81), only a minority of these (23) are considered to have

significant eff ects on water resources. The Soil Conservation Service

has filed only two draft and two final statements, although the agency

has a sizeable program of small watershed projects consisting of 25

projects under construction and 19 projects in the planning stage. The

agency has a number of statements in process, however, some of which will

be filed during 1974.

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission has completed a total of five

draft and four final statements involving licensing of construction of

five nuclear power plants which would have major effects on North Carolina

water resources. Also the Federal Power Commission has filed four draft

and one final statement involving licensing of three hydro electric power

projects. The TVA's three draft and one final statement involve proposed

construction of one multiple-purpose reservoir and three management plans

for portions of the TVA reservoir system in North Carolina.

"lost of the NEFA environmental statements summarized in Table IV-1

are concerned with projects that were planned prior to enactment of NEPA;

many had already been authorized for construction. Thus, as shown in

Table IV-2, this backlog of planned or approved projects began to be

liquidated in 1971, with the peak rate occurring in the early months of

1972.

Since mid-1972 the completion rate has stabilized at approximately 2.5

statements per month.

As shown in Table IV-3, five of the ten environmental statements

completed under provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Quality

Act were prepared by the Office of Water and Air Resources; these were

for small navigation projects in the Coastal zone. In addition, three

statements were filed by the Marine Science Council for proposed con-

struction of marine resource facilities in Carteret, Dare and New

Hanover counties along the coast.

The geographic distribution of the proposed projects involved is

shown in Figures IV.1--IV.4. In Figure IV.1, the 30 projects of the

Corps of Engineers, for which draft and final statements have been

completed through January 1974, are located by type of project-navigation,

beach erosion, flood control, or multiple-purpose reservoir. Figure

IV.2 shows the locations of 20 projects of other Federal agencies for

which environmental statements were filed, including projects of TVA,

Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, Atomic Energy Commission and

others. In Figure IV.3, the locations are shown of 19 water-related

projects of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway

Safety for which environmental statements were filed through March 1973.

Figure IV.4 shows the location of all ten state water-related projects

for which environmental statements.were filed under provisions of the

NCEPA through January 1974.

A list of the water-related environmental statements filed by Federal

and State agencies is contained in Appendix A.

TABLE IV-2

NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL STATE14ENTS AFFECTING
NORTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES,
BY YEAR AND MONTH OF COMPLETION

Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1970 6

1971 - 2 - - 3 3 2 1 3 6 1

1972 7 7 8@ 5 4 3 3 2 - 3 5 4

1973 2 3 1 1 6 4 1 2 1 1 - 3

1974 5

TABLE IV-3

NCEPA ENVIRONMENTAL STATMIENTS AFFECTING
NORTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES BY SUBMITTING AGENCY,
MARCH 1972-JANUARY 1974

Agency

Office of Water and Air Resources,
Navigation channels 5

North Carolina Forest Service 1

North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission 1

North Carolina Marine Science Council,
Marine resource facilities 3

TOTAL 10

.Q IWPTO
SABA, AM M-COU I C.M.
At

j FOISY
I ll.m
ALIALAIIII I
104TCONIE
ALEI [I NAVIE I
IAIICEI
NADISON - - ----
INEDELL I WOOL
BOND LIM 1 CKATHAM WIL$01
AlIPAMIL 1, CATAWBA All... PITT
BABCout
NATWOOD - - - - - - - -
- -l- _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LI.C6101
UTHERFORD I CABAIRU
- - - - , / A.-I WA I I
1.-0. ".1-.10 CLE11B., USTON AL-I
POLX
MAMMA I it"imm
AAACO.
C1.1 10.1i
AO- M0.
AICO.

0.1 A.
C07LAND

PE111112 I
U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATER RESOUR

O'ER
PROJECTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS FILED

NOVEMBER 1970 THROUGH JANUARY 1974

(D NAVIGATION

BEACH EROSION AND HURRICANE PROTECTION

MULTIPLE - PURPOSE RESERVOIRS

FLOOD- CONTROL

WATER RELATED PROJECTS OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH ENVIRONME

STATEMENTS FILED NOVEMBER 1970 THROUGH JANUARY 1974

As., so... O.f. .......... GAS....
HALIFAX

YADKIN FORS" -MIN
GUILFORD
LIFFILYLl' "I
CA, It AN. .-con'sE
TANcEy ALEIA Ull HAVE
-YLl RARE
BURKA Am ... MILIKAR -soN
N@IAOXFILL I I.-All
11111c.-
HAYWOOD I..."o.
clilt.,
- 11A lot. FIX
0 , - - -- 1, 1
Q '- - I W-lolo I CARNAHAN wAvX1
621.11111 1 1, 11INDEILIN ILEIII.An A'.,,, 1110117011. YXIOIL
maAss. I F I III CRAY

THAPIAl
]RECALL A
c .... ALI 'CRY RIAM ..'A
RICAN. D HE CUMILIKII -,Hass

LEGEND oRslo.
COTLAND
0 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ollim LAM
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MAIN

cl FOREST SERVICE
AIR
cot ... Is
A RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE F
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR , BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

G ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

& ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
22 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

No ROVER
ASK woo
sulty N.C.,.... AIDE" PERSON
TIC
AI .I

TANNIN 1. A ITT
AV, .1 .... CE FRANKLIN
AN

YANCEY - - - - - -

IIIIIII)S811 I INAKI
folIKE -7\1771- I HAND LPN CNATNAM WIL1.11
MICHANUTI IATAVAA PITT
Wfloo. - - - - - - - - DONATOR GNEERE
L 111COID

TILDE. CLEVELAND STREET MONTGOINE MOORE
WRAP.
lot. CASTON LENOIR
>
At OHIO.
TIRE CUMBERIAN.
.1-ollo
.to.
... ON

m AM
COTLAND

HAITI.. ILADIII

VERDE.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY SAFETY WATER RELATED HIGHWAY

I BROMIDIC
PROJECTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS FILED

NOVEMBER 1970 THROUGH MARCH 1973

Amp'.. I
ME ONES AN, A CAL I. c
RAKwILLE NALIFAX

MINE,
IADNIII rolsv.
W-TI. 111111GE 1
- - - - -- - - - AIMIll AA
NASA
REST CAL I, ALIET. I. loCITME

MOSIL C,AvIvNoN I NARE
NEAR, AM L. EARTH.. RIMET
M'DOWELL CATATTLA
oulcomill, I I
lemlistoo cill-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - LEE
AUTHRIM I CABARRUS .... ITT
CIIANAIII I -II C-ILAIIII TAILI 1101ITION1
jAcKsON LENOIR CANN
POLK CAST..
'TRANSTLI AlICKLE119
IKE.A.EE MACIAI
SEAT 1-I.L.111T juNts
114. AM. WARM ...'Tom KOPLIN
ul

CD7L..b

WATE R RELATED PROJECTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL .....

I.
STATEMENTS FILED UNDER N C E P A THROUGH

JANUARY 1974 KRUNSTRI, I

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

0 OFFICE OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES
0 OFFICE OF FOREST RESOURCES
3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION t MARINE SCIENCE COUNCIL

CHAPTER V

EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PROCESS

A major purpose of NEPA was to introduce environmental quality as a

national objective of public policy with respect to all major actions of

the Federal Government. In particular, the provisions of Section 102(2)(C)

for the preparation of environmental statements were seen by the sponsors

of the Act as "action-forcing" mechanisms, which would lead to major changes

both in procedures--how projects are planned, reviewed and approved--and

in substance--the very nature of the projects themselves (Andrews, 1972).

It is legitimate, therefore, in evaluating the impact of NEPA and, by

extension NCEPA, on North Carolina water resources, to ask (1) to what

extent have water resource planning, review and approval procedures changed,

and (2) to what extent, if any has the substance of projects been affected?

The search for answers to these questions will take the following route:

(1) How effective have the formal procedures for State, regional and

local review of environmental statements been? How have they been per-

ceived by the various actors--the agencies originating the statements, the

State reviewing agencies, the public interest environmental groups and

the general public?

(2) What has been the experience of formal adherence to the require-

ments for preparation of environmental statements by the various Federal

and State agencies concerned?

(3) What has been the quality of the environmental statements that

have been prepared under provisions of NEPA and NCEPA?

(4) What has been the nature of the comments prepared by State agencies

and public interest groups on the environmental statements reviewed by them?

(5) What changes, if any, have been made in proposed projects as a

direct result of the preparation of environmental statements and the

comments made on them?

(6) What indirect effects, if any, on agency programs can be traced

to the environmental statement requirements of NEPA and NCEPA?

(7) To what extent have Federal and State agency planning procedures

been modified to provide for effective consideration,of environmental quali-

ty early in the planning process?

(8) To what extent has litigation, brought by environmental public

interest groups, played an important role in increasing consideration of

environmental values in decisions affecting North Carolina water resources?

(9) To what extent has the environmental statement process provided

greater opportunities for public participation in water-resource planning

,and decision-making in North Carolina?

(10) In terms of the planning and decision model of.Chapter II, has

North Carolina experience with environmental statements shown any movement

toward fulfilling the specifications of the model?

Effectiveness of Formal Review Procedures

The fact that North Carolina had already developed a full-scale State

and regional clearinghouse procedure, created to process A-95 grant-in-aid

information, by the time that NEPA and NCEPA were enacted has much to do

with the success of the formal review procedures for environmental state-

ments. The procedure appears to be working quite effectively insofar as

the actual clearance of environmental statements is 9oncerned, and some-

what less effectively insofar as dissemination of information to the general

public is concerned. All State and regional agencies with legitimate

interests receive copies of the statements shortly after they are filed

with the State Clearinghouse; furthermore, there is no uncertainty about

this process. Within three weeks of filing at most, all individuals and

groups who have expressed interest in environmental statements by sub-

scribing to the North Carolina Environmental Bulletin receive information

on new filings of environmental statements. Within a month after the

Bulletin was first issued, its subscription list numbered over 700.

Currently, the Bulletin is mailed to about 650 individuals or groups.

There has been no major criticism of the environmental statement

clearance activities of the State Clearinghouse, by the Federal, State,

regional or local agencies involved. There has been some criticism of

the information disseminating activity of the State Clearinghouse. Some

individuals and environmental groups pointed out that as much as a two-

week lag can occur between receipt of an environmental statement by the

State Clearinghouse and information of its availability being carried in

the Environmental Bulletin. This leaves individuals and groups very little

time to analyze statements and prepare comments, because much of the

nominal 45-day reporting period may have expired because of delays in trans-

mission of environmental statements from the originating agency to the

State Clearinghouse, as well as the delay in reporting in the Environmental

Bulletin. These delays have led some individuals and groups to seek in-

formation on environmental statements direct from the issuing agency. It

has also been suggested that Federal and State agencies provide information

at key earlier stages of project planning that can be reported in the

Environmental Bulletin. This is being done for many proposed highway projects,

but not systematically as yet for water-resource projects. A valuable

supplemental aid for the general public is the North Carolina Citizen's

Guide to Commenting on Environmental Impact Statements, prepared in March,

1973 in the Division of Continuing Education, N.C. State University.

In spite of the short time available to State agencies for submitting

comments to the State Clearinghouse--usually no more than three weeks--

the agencies almost always meet the deadlines. In the case of a few

complex or controversial projects, where coordination of agency comments

in the Department of Natural and Economic Resources turned out to be

especially time-consuming, extensions of time were obtained by the State

Clearinghouse from the initiating Federal agency. In spite of this

generally good performance with respect to meeting deadlines, State agency

staffs do operate under severe time constraints, and deadlines are often

met at the expense of thoroughness and quality of the analysis of environ-

mental statements. This problem is less serious in those cases where

State agencies either have had prior knowledge of the project covered by

the environmental statement or have participated in the planning of the

project.

Agency Performance in Filing Statements

There is considerable variation in the performance of Federal agencies

in meeting the formal requirements of NEPA for the filing of environmental

statements. Furthermore, the performance has changed over time, as the

provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA have been interpreted via revisions

of CEQ guidelines and by Court decisions.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It has already been noted that, although

NEPA became effective on January 1, 1970, and the CEQ issued its first interim

guidelines on April 30, 1970, the first environmental statement.on a North

Carolina project was not filed until November.1970. In fact, until mid-1971

the only environmental statements affecting North Carolina water resources

were filed by the U.S. Army do@ps of Engineers. As Andrews has documented,

the Corps was one of the first Federal agencies to establish procedures for

preparing and filing environmental statements, and took a positive view

toward meeting the formal requirements for submission of environmental state-

ments (Andrews, 1972). Andrews evaluates the Corps' policy response to

NEPA as of early 1972, as follows:

"(The Corps') instructions (to its field offices) defined
in increasing detail the categories of agency action to which
the environmental statements procedure was to apply, and they
stated clearly that it was to apply to projects already under-
way if significant incremental actions (examples of which were
given) remained to be taken. More generally, they emphasized
a policy that NEPA allowed (and directed) the Corps to recog-
nize environmental quality protection as a legitimate purpose
to be planned for, using environmental rather than merely eco-
nomic criteria--a significant change, in an agency traditional-
ly guided by narrow criteria of economic efficiency and regional
economic development, even though the new balance that was to
be struck was not clearly defined.. Third, the Corps took poli-
cy positions stronger than those of the Council on Environmental
Quality on at least two major points: first, that the environ-
mental statement process was to be fully integrated into the
normal process of preauthorization surveys, and second, that
the public was to be informed of environmental considerations
as early as possible and specifically at any public hearings
normally held. It appears clear, in short, that the Corps was
determined not to appear grudging or recalcitrant in its re-
sponse to NEPA, at least insofar as its officially stated
policies were concerned."

This national policy of the Corps has been reflected in North Carolina

experience. From the start, the Corps has prepared environmental statements

on North Carolina projects that were already authorized for construction and,

in somecases, such as New Hope (B. Everett Jordan) Lake, projects for which

construction funds were already appropriated. Each Corps' District affect-

ing North Carolina has prepared a schedule for preparing environmental state-

ments for projects in the engineering and design, construction, and opera-

tion and maintenance stages. For example, for fiscal years 1974-76, the

Wilmington District of the Corps has scheduled preparation of environmental

statements for six projects in the advanced engineering and design stage,

five projects in the construction stage, six projects for which the Corps

has continuing authority to plan, construct and operate, and seven projects

in the operation and maintenance stage. There is no important category of

Corps of Engineer's action on civil works that is not conforming to NEPA

requirements and CEQ guidelines.

The District offices of the Corps are also giving wide distribution to

draft environmental statements during the 45-day period set aside for comments

following Corps' submission of draft statements to CEQ. Thus, a preliminary

draft statement for the Buckhorn Lake project was sent in June 1972 to nine

environmental groups, three other public associations, nine university repre-

sentatives on four campuses, nine mayors, ten boards of county commissioners,

three regional agencies, as well as to the many Federal and State agencies

concerned. Similarly, the revised draft statement for the Falls Lake project

was sent in August 1973, to 14 environmental groups, three women's groups,

six other citizen's groups, eight university representatives on three campuses,

eight mayors, three boards of county commissioners, three regional agencies,

and seven city chambers of commerce as well as to concerned Federal and State

agencies; in addition, copies of the draft statement were placed in 34 public

and university libraries in Raleigh, Durham and smaller communities in

Durham, Wake and Granville Counties.

Soil Conservation Service. As noted in Chapter V, the Soil Conserva-

tion Service did not issue definitive environmental policies and procedures

to its State conservationists until March 1971 (Soil Conservation Service,

Environment Memorandum 1, March 19, 1971); these guidelines called for

preparation of environmental statements for all project plans whose water-

shed work plan agreements were signed after January 1, 1970. For the many

watershed projects with agreements signed before this date, however, the

decision on whether to prepare an environmental statement was to be handled

on a case-by-case basis. In fact, for all watershed projects involving

stream channelization that had been approved but not yet carried out, the

Soil Conservation Service directed a detailed review and classification

of projects in terms of their overall environmental and economic worth

(Soil Conservation Service, Watersheds Memorandum 108, February 4, 1971).

This served to delay decision on whether to prepare environmental state-

ments on already approved projects until completion of the review,

scheduled for June 30, 1971; Memorandum 108 also led to the determination

by State Conservationists that many stream channelization projects had no

significant adverse effect on the environment and, hence, that environmental

statements need not be prepared for these projects.

This national policy of the Soil Conservation Service was reflected

in North Carolina. As of June 30, 1971, the Service had filed no environ-

mental statements on North Carolina watershed projects. Acting under

Memorandum 108, the Service had prepared a revised Watershed Work Plan

for the Chicod Creek Watershed project and determined that, as modified,

the proposed project would have no significant effect on the environment

and hence could proceed to the construction stage without further action

including preparation of an environmental statement. This determination

was strongly opposed by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Department of Natural and Economic Resources and led to the filing of a

suit in Federal Court by five national and local environmental organiza-

tions to halt further action on the project (Natural Resources Defense

Council v. Grant, 1972). Most of the available resources of the State

office of the Service were absorbed during the first six months of 1972

in responding to this suit, including preparation of draft and final

environmental statements for the Chicod Creek project, filed in April

and July, 1972, respectively.

Since mid-1972, the Service has filed environmental statements for

two additional projects, and is now actively working on environmental

statements for 13 projects in the planning stage and three projects in

the construction stage. In addition, the Service has revised the environ-

mental statement for Chicod Creek, in accordance with the Federal District

Court ruling of February 3, 1973 (Natural Resources Defense Council v.

Grant, 1973). The Service has not yet determined to what extent environ-

mental statements will be prepared for the 21 other watershed projects

approved for operations. Some of these projects have been inactive for

several years and, accordingly, preparation of environmental statements

for these would not seem to be warranted.

Environmental Protection AgencX. The original CEQ guidelines for

NEPA exempted the regulatory activities of EPA from the environmental

statement requirements of the Act, and there has been considerable

ambiguity as to whether and to what extent NEPA requirements for environ-

mental statements apply to EPA (Anderson, pp. 108-113). In guidelines

issued in January,' 1972 (37 Fed. Reg. 879, Jan. 20, 1972) EPA indicated

its intention to prepare statements for wastewater treatment facility

grants and approvals of regional water quality management plans. The

Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 exempted EPA from pre-

paring environmental statements on all aspects of the water quality pro-

gram except for grants for publicly-owned wastewater treatment works and

for discharge permits for new sources of pollution. As a result of the

initial uncertainty and subsequent exemptions, EPA had by January 31,

1974 filed draft or final statements nationally on only 58 actions, most

of which were for wastewateritreatment facility grants. In contrast, the

Corps of Engineers had filed statements on 918 actions nationally. This

situation is reflected in North Carolina, where EPA has submitted only one

environmental statement to January 31, 1974, this for a wastewater treat-

ment plant in Marion, McDowell County. Currently, EPA is preparing draft

environmental statements for a number of additional projects in North

Carolina.

Other Federal Agencies. From the very start, environmental state-

ments have been prepared on a timely and consistent basis by the State

Division of Highways in conformance with guidelines issued by the U.S.

Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for Federal-

aid highway projects, and in conformance with guidelines issued under NCEPA

for State-financed projects. As discussed later in this Chapter, the Federal

and State guidelines have been revised to conform with revised CEQ guide-

lines, and have been incorporated into the new highway planning process as

or set forth in the N.C. Highway Action Plan (1973). No problems have arisen

in North Carolina insofar as formal compliance with NEPA is concerned.

Following the Calvert Cliffs decision in 1971, the Atomic Energy Commission

revised its procedures for preparation and submission of environmental

statements, and no problems have arisen with respect to formal compliance

for environmental statements on nuclear power plants and other facilities

affecting North Carolina. Currently, TVA has very little activity in

North Carolina for which environmental statements are required. No major

problems have arisen on formal compliance of the U.S. Forest Service or

Federal Power Commission with the environmental statement provisions of

NEPA.

State of North Carolina Projects. With the exception of State high-

way projects, very few environmental statements have been filed for pro-

jects financed exclusively by the State. In addition to State highway

projects, only ten statements have been filed through January 1974 for

State projects affecting water resources. This may well represent the

total population of new projects affecting water resources, but there may

be some State projects for which environmental statements should be pre-

pared but have not been. The record of performance of State agencies

under NCEPA is not known because no recent survey of performance under

the Act has been undertaken by the Department of Administration.

Quality of Environmental Statements

One way of assessing the quality of environmental statements is to

match them against the five specific elements listed in Section 102(2)(C)

of NEPA, plus the requirement for a "systematic, interdisciplinary approach"

set forth in Section 102(2)(A) of the Act. Another way is to identify and

evaluate the specific criticisms of statements made by Federal, State and

regional agencies and by individuals and groups outside of government.

Still another method is to review Court decisions and the supporting

opinions with regard to adequacy of environmental statements. Taken

together, these diverse ways of assessing quality should lead to some

consistency in evaluation.

One general characteristic of environmental statement filings on

North Carolina projects is that the earlier statements--those filed in

late 1970 and in 1971--were of much poorer quality than the later state-

ments. This secular improvement in quality was quite consistent among

agencies; for example both Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division

of Highways statements improved significantly over time. Draft statements

filed by the Atomic Energy Commission for nuclear power plants in early

1972 were followed by much improved draft and final statements later in

1972 and thereafter. The first environmental statement filed by the Soil

Conservation Service--Chicod Creek in April, 1972--was followed by improved

statements on other projects later in 1972 and 1973.

Reasons for this trend are fairly clear; the late 1970 statements of

the Corps of Engineers were prepared to meet a deadline for Congressional

authorization of water-resource projects. Early statements were prepared

without much detailed guidance from CEQ and the central offices of the

agencies, and without benefit of Court decisions and opinions. Furthermore,

agency environmental expertise was.inadequate and methodologies were largely

undeveloped. All of these inadequacies have become less serious as time

has elapsed, so that one would expect to find a great improvement in quality

of environmental statements by early 1974.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In general, when evaluated against

NEPA Section 102(2)(C) criteria, most Corps' statements filed since early

1972 range from marginal to adequate in quality. Earlier statements were

significantly poorer than statements prepared in 1973 and 1974. None of the

statements, even the best such as the August 1973 revised statement on the

Falls Lake project, use a rigorous analytical framework for environmental

assessment. One of the principal weaknesses is the inadequate analysis of

alternatives to proposed projects; this is not surprising when one considers

that most of the environmental statements were prepared for projects that

were already authorized or well along in planning.

Evaluations of Corps' statements by other Federal agencies are con-

sistent with these findings. For example, the EPA, in comments made on

11 North Carolina environmental statements of the Corps, found that eight

statements had inadequate information on potential environmental effects.

Only three statements were considered to be fully satisfactory. The Fish

and Wildlife Service has consistently expressed reservations on the adequa-

cy of treatment of adverse environmental effects on fish and wildlife in

Corps' environmental statements, including statements on major reservoir

projects such as New Hope and Falls Lakes. Other Federal agencies expressed

occasional reservations, mostly of a minor or technical nature.

Comments of State agencies on Corps' environmental statements since

mid-1971 have, on occasion, been quite critical. In particular, State

agency comments reflecting fish, wildlife, forestry and conservation points

of view have taken issue with both the substance of Corps' proposals and

the asserted inadequacy of information and analysis continued in the state-

ments. Thus, in June 1971, the Department of Conservation and Development

objected to the Tranter's Creek flood control project; in October 1971,

the successor Department of Natural and Economic Resources pointed to in-

adequate treatment of three basic issues in the draft environmental state-

ment for the Nahunta Swamp project; in June 1972, the Department categorized

the draft environmental statement on Clinchfield reservoir as "completely

inadequate".

In October, 1973, however, the Department commented more favorably

on the massive four-volume, revised draft statement on the Falls Lake

project (Falls Lake Final Environmental Statement [Revised] 1974, Exhibit

J-1):

"In overview, we find this draft (statement) to be
superior to any we have reviewed for a comparable project
(underlining in original). Despite its size, the document
still has shortcomings. The treatment of alternatives is,
as usual in impact statements, inadequate in that it does.
not treat each of the feasible alternatives in equal depth
(underlining in original). Furthermore, the statem@n_t -tends
to be a compendium of undigested and unrelated information
from a variety of sources rather than a tightly written,
careful analysis of a complex, costly project. Furthermore,
we find that sufficient care is often not exercised in
judging material for accuracy before it is included in the
statement. Despite these criticisms, the statement is a
vast improvement on the earlier document and is far better
than anything we have reviewed for any similar project. As
the Wildlife Resources Commission points out, the section
dealing with the 'Environmental Setting of the Project' is
excellent and the section dealing with 'Environmental Impact
of the Proposed Action' is a clear exposition of the impact
of the project on fish and wildlife resources."

As might be expected, comments of environmental groups were quite

consistently critical of both the environmental statements and the project

proposals that were the subject of the statements. Some of these comments

were associated with court suits filed on the New Hope Lake and Falls Lake

projects in August, 1971, and March, 1973, respectively. Especially in

the New Hope case, the environmental groups subjected the revised draft

environmental statement of April 1971 to intensive analysis and in the

process raised many questions on adequacy of information and analysis.

Again, in January 1972, the Conservation Council of North Carolina, the

major Plaintiff in the New Hope Court suit, submitted to the CEO a 11-

page critical analysis of the Corps'. final environmental statement on the

project, dated October 1971 In contrast, by October 1973, the Joseph

LeConte Chapter of the Sierra Club was commenting on the revised draft

statement on the Falls Lake project as follows-(Falls Lake Final Environ-

mental Statement [Revised] 1974

"Our overall reaction to this draft can perhaps best
be summed up by the two words inclusive and concisive. Un-
like the previous draft, this statement@cov&rs most of the
topics and issues we would expect. On this point we con-
gratulate you. But, like Janus, this statement has two
faces: while it is inclusive, it is not as conclusive as
we had hoped. As is pointed out in the attachment', too
many of the impacts are vaguely described, given different
treatments in different places, and generally speaking, so
heavily manipulated that it is difficult to know what may
be the impacts of the Falls project."

Soil Conservation Service. The draft statement on the Chicod Creek

project, prepared hurriedly in the Spring of 1972 in response to the Court

suit, was severely criticized by other Federal agencies, State agencies

and national and State environmental groups. In particular, the U.S.

Department of the Interior, the N.C. Department of Natural and Economic

Resources and the Natural Resources Defense Council pointed to the in-

adequate analysis of the adverse environmental effects of the proposed

stream channelization. Although the Soil Conservation Service attempted

to remove some of the stated inadequacies in revisions incorporated in

the final environmental statement filed in July 1972, the U.S..District

Court in its February 1973 decision found eight categories of inadequacy

in the final statement, and issued a preliminary injunction barring further

action on the project. In response to the Court's action, the Service has

recently completed a draft revised environmental statement which was re-

ceived by the State Clearinghouse on May 16, 1974 (U.S. Soil Conservation

Service, Draft Environmental Statement [Revised]-Chicod Creek Watershed).

The Service has filed only two other environmental statements thus

far; for one of these, the EPA expressed environmental reservations and

reported that insufficient information was presented in the statement.

Division of State Highways. In general, environmental statements

prepared by the Division of State Highways have received only moderate

criticism from Federal and State natural resources agencies and environ-

mental agencies in North Carolina. There have been few specific criticisms

related to water resources. In June 1972 a high official of the Department

of Natural and Economic Resources commented as follows (Greensboro Daily

News, June 18, 1972):

"Generally speaking, the Highway Commission writes the
most competent statements. There are some exceptions ... but
they have made a very real effort to comply with the law."

An official of ECOS (an environmental organization) supported this

view by characterizing this agency's statements as "well prepared and

generally in keeping with the letter and spirit of NEPA" (Greensboro

Daily News, June 18, 1972).

A sampling of EPA comments on environmental statements for North

Carolina highway project s reveals that EPA evaluations are about evenly

divided between "no objection--adequate" and "environmental reservation--

insufficient information."

The generally favorable reception by natural-resource oriented agencies

of statements on highway projects may be less an indication of high quality

than a relative absence of major conflict. Certainly the environmental

statement on.I-40 in Durham and Orange Counties has been severely criticized

by local and environmental groups in Orange County on the grounds of adequa-

cy of information; but this may be due in large part to the intense opposi-

tion to the proposed route by Orange County citizens.

A detailed analysis of ten environmental statements and one negative

declaration involving important water-related highway projects has revealed

some serious inadequacies in both information and analyses contained in

the statements. Generally, only the most apparent effects on water resources

have been identified, and the magnitude and duration of these effects are

seldom included. Discussion of effects is frequently combined with qualifica-

tions, value judgments, and reassurance of the moderation of effects. Second-

level effects, such as influence of increased siltation.on aquatic organisms,

are rarely identified. Beyond the identification of the most obvious impacts

on water resources and assurances that corrective measures will be taken, the

statements consist largely of general assertions and unsupported value judg-

ments. There is evidence, however, that the quality of environmental state-

ments on highway projects has significantly improved since late 1972.

It is recognized that this detailed analysis which reveals inadequacies

is not fully reflected in Federal dnd State agency comments on the quality

of statements on North Carolina highway projects. As noted above, this may

be due to the incidental nature of water-resource impacts relative to other

impacts of most highway projects. Further details are contained in Appendix

Atomic Energy Commission. Since the Calvert Cliffs decision in

1971 (Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission,

1972), the Atomic Energy Commission has greatly expanded and improved its

capability for preparing environmental statements, and the results are

reflected in the improved quality of environmental statements on nuclear

power plants over time. Largely because of the importance of the waste-

water thermal pollution problem associated with massive nuclear power

plants, EPA has expressed environmental reservations on four nuclear power

plants affecting North Carolina. Other Federal and State agencies, however,

have raised no major questions about the adequacy of these environmental

statements.

State Projects under NCEPA. Environmental statements for water-

related projects prepared tmder provisions of NCEPA have typically been

brief and relatively simple in nature, becuase the projects have been

quite small in scale. The quality of the statements has not been a major

issue in the review process.

Comments of State Agencies and Environmental Groups

Comments of State agencies on environmental statements are in large

part a function of the orientation of individual agencies toward or away

from development. Thus, the comments of the Wildlife Resources Commission

and the Office of Fisheries and Wildlife Resources have tended to be

critical, especially of environmental statements on channelization projects

or on major reservoirs proposed by the Corps of Engineers and TVA. Con-

versely, comments on environmental statements for such projects by the

Office of Water and Air Resources have been, on the whole, favorable; the

criticisms that were made did not raise fundamental questions as to the

desirability of the projects. This is not surprising because many of

these projects had previously been approved by the Board of Water and

Air Resources acting under its statutory authorities.

The nature of State agency comments has also changed over time.

Comments on the early environmental statements in 1970 and 1971 were often

perfunctory and contained few major criticisms or objections, in spite

of the fact that many of the early environmental statements were very

brief and sketchy. By late 1971, however, Court interpretations of NEPA

lent support to the view that environmental statements should be complete,

in-depth, authoritative treatments of environmental impacts, rather than

a superficial description of obvious consequences. Also, in late 1971,

the newly established Department of Natural and Economic Resources began

to inject an overall natural resources point of view into the review of

environmental statements. A procedure was established whereby the comments

of the individual offices of the Department were reviewed in the office of

the Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources, and a coordinated Depart-

mental position on each environmental statement was developed and forwarded

to the State Clearinghouse. As experience was gained with this procedure,

comments from the Department of Natural and Economic Resources came more

and more to reflect a consistent Departmental position of promoting environ-

mental values.

In general, both time and staff constraints have placed severe limits

on the extent of State agency comments. Usually, an agency has less than

30 days to prepare comments; this means that no extended studies can be

undertaken but that the agency must rely on readily avallable data. With

few exceptions, no additional staff resources were provided to agencies

to handle comments on environmental statements; the work had to be fitted

in to the schedule of regular agency activities. Accordingly, in the

absence of some readily apparent conflict in resource use, State agency

comments on environmd-n-tal statements tend to be routine and often per-

functory.

As might be expected, the comments of environmental groups tend to

be critical both of the content of the environmental statements and of the

developments proposed to be undertaken. Given the severe time constraints

and the limited resources available-to most environmental groups, their

comments are surprisingly complete and detailed. The major North Carolina

environmental agencies that have commented extensively on water-related

environmental statements are:

'Conservation Council of North Carolina
ECOS, Incorporated
Sierra Club, Joseph E. LeConte Chapter, Raleigh
North Carolina Wildlife Federation

In addition, national environmental organizations have provided help in

preparing comments on specific environmental statements. Thus, for

example, comments on the draft statement for Chicod Creek were prepared

jointly by the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife

Federation, Friends of the Earth and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation.

Environmental groups have concentrated their attention on a few major

development projects, such as New Hope and Falls Lakes, Clinchfield and

Mills River Reservoirs, and on a key project in the Soil Conservation

Service stream channelization program--Chicod Creek. For example, in 1971

the Conservation Council of North Carolina prepared a detailed critique

of the Corps' draft statement on the New Hope Lake project and, following

completion by the Corps of the final environmental statement, the Council

sent a second detailed critique to the CEQ which pointed to alleged serious

omissions, distortions and other inadequacies in the statement. Of course,

the Conservation Council's comments on the statement are related to the

fact that it had instituted a suit against the Federal Government in August

1971 to bar construction of the New Hope project (Wallace, 1974; Conservation

Council of North Carolina v. Froelke, 1971).

Environmental groups also commented critically at length on the final

environmental statement for Falls Lake filed in April 1971. One year

later the Joseph LeConte Chapter of the Sierra Club wrote to the Wilmington

District of the Corps expressing concern for the environmental consequences

of the project and the inadequacy of the environmental statement, and re-

questing a revision of the statement before further action was taken on the

project. Ten specific topics for analysis or other action were suggested.

Other environmental groups, including ECOS, and Wake Environment, Inc.,

later joined with the Sierra Club in reiterating these recommendations.

Following the completion by the Corps of its much improved draft revised

statement on Falls Lake in August 1973, the Joseph LeConte Chapter of the

Sierra Club again prepared a detailed analysis which was much less critical

of the Corps' analysis than its earlier comments; in addition, the Conser-

vation Council of North Carolina filed supplementary comments. It is

pertinent to note that the Falls Lake Project is also a subject of Court

suit seeking a halt to land acquisition for the project, filed in March

1973 by the Neuse Valley Association, an organization of landowners in the

reservoir area. No environmental groups are party to the suit, however.

Perhaps the most intensive assault on a North Carolina environmental

statement by environmental groups is that associated with the Chicod Creek

project. Actually the concern of these groups arose from the facts that

(1) the Chicod Creek project was one of a class of small watershed projects

of the Soil Conservation Service that involved extensive stream channeliza-

tion and (2) the Soil Conservation Service had ruled that no environmental

statement was required for this project. Chicod Creek thus became a national

test case on the issues of stream channelization and environmental impact

on fishery and wildlife resources. Accordingly, three national groups--

the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation,

and the Friends of the Earth--joined two local organizations--the North

Carolina Wildlife Federation and the Pamlico-Tar Conservation Coalition--

in filing suit on November 30, 1971, to halt construction of the project

pending preparation of an environmental statement. Following the February

1972 court ruling that an environmental statement be filed within 30 days,

the Service prepared a draft statement on which the environmental groups made

extensive and detailed critical comments. A 50-page statement-in two parts

was filed by these groups. This was supported by a 28-page statement by

ECOS and a four-page analysis by the Joseph LeConte Chapter of the Sierra

Club.

Effects of Environmental Statements on Projects

Very few changes in projects can be traced directly to the operation

of the environmental statement process. Yet, the few changes that have

been identified are for important projects, and thus have significance

beyond the boundaries of the project.

The fact that Governor Scott in September 1971 requested the TVA

to revise its draft environmental statement for the Mills River reservoir
project in part led TVA to postpone further action on this and 13 other

proposed projects in the French Broad basin., Of course, intense local

opposition by environmental groups led by the Upper French Broad Defense

Association and erosion of local support for the project were also important

factors in TVA's decision to suspend further action; yet this postponement

of a major water-development program can be traced directly to the workings

of the environmental statement process. Following normal procedures and

established relationships, a representative of the North Carolina Department

of Water and Air Resources testified at a TVA public hearing in Asheville

on August 31,.1971, that the State favored immediate construction of the

Mills River project. Yet, in his letter of September 8, 1971, commenting

on TVA's draft environment al statement for the project, Governor Scott

implied that the project should not go forward until major questions raised

on the environmental and social effects of the project were satisfactorily

answered (N.C. State Clearinghouse File: Mills River Dam and Reservoir,

TVA).

The current compromise resolution of the Court suit on New Hope Lake

has the following consequences (Wallace, 1974):

(1) Clearing of the reservoir area has been postponed pending further

studies.

(2) The option of operating the reservoir solely as a flood retention

structure, without a permanent conservation pool, has been preserved pend-

ing further action on the case.

(3) A supplement to the environmental statement on the project will

be prepared and submitted for comment following completion of further

studies.

(4) Plaintiffs will discuss alternative uses of the reservoir areas

in their comments on the supplemental statement.
(5) Plaintiffs reserve the right to challenge any decision to impound

waters in a permanent conservation pool and will seek to have any additional

nutrient-removal costs caused by such impoundment to be charged to the pro-

ject.

This possible major change in the use of the New Hope project is

directly traceable to the NEPA requirement for filing of environmental

statements. As described by James Wallace, "For the first time, the New

Hope controversy had acquired a legal focus, albeit a belated one"

(Wallace, 1974, p. 3).

A major change in size of the cooling-water reservoir for the Shearon

Harris nuclear power plant is due in part to the environmental statement

pr ocess. In commenting on the final environmental statement of the Atomic

Energy Commission for the plant, the Environmental Protection Agency held

that the project as proposed was unsatisfactory as it violated the Federally-

approved water quality standards, This led to a major revision of the pro-

posed lake which reduced it in size from 10,400 acres to 4,100 acres;

cooling towers were added to the design to compensate for the reduction in

lake size. Of course, the Environmental Protection Agency might have taken

the same action in the absence of NEPA requirements for environmental state-

ments, but the statement review process provided the proximate basis for

EPA to act (Atomic Energy Commission, Revised Draft Environmental Statement,

Shearon Harris Plant, January, 1974).

Other changes in projects traceable to NEPA requirements are less

striking and are indirect in nature. The Soil Conservation Service made

some changes in stream channelization projects to reduce or mitigate

adverse effects on fish and wildlife, in the process of re-analysis of

stream channelization projects called for in.Memorandum No. 108. But,

in the case of the Chicod Creek project these changes were not adequate

to satisfy the environmental groups or the fish and wildlife agencies of

the Federal and State governments, and the Court suit followed. It is

not known at this writing whether further changes have been made in the

Chicod Creek project incident to the completion of the draft of the revised

environmental statement.

Still other projects appear to have been delayed because of adverse

comments on draft environmental statements. For example, the proposed

Blue Ridge hydroelectric power project for which the Appalachian Power

Company is seeking a Federal Power Commission license was held up for two

years pending completion of a final environmental statement. Although

this statement was finally filed in June 1973, and the license has finally

been issued, the effective date has been postponed until January 1975 to

allow Congress to act on a proposal of the two North Carolina Senators

that a study be made prior to a final decision on the project (Chapel Hill

Newspaper, June 16, 1974).

A review of the record of draft and final environmental statements

filed with the State Clearinghouse (Appendix A) reveals that in the cases

of nine Corps of Engineers projects for which draft statements were filed

in 1971 and 1972, no final statements have yet been filed. In some cases

this long delay can be ascribed to objections raised to the projects by

other agencies or by environmental groups. For example, serious objections

were raised to the proposed Clinchfield Reservoir by the Department of

Natural and Economic Resources and by the Rutherford County Conservation

Council, a local environmental organization. The project now appears to be

under further study (North Carolina Water Plan--Progress Report, Chapter

26, 1974). Other projects in this group on which-questions have been

raised by the Department of Natural and Economic Resources are the Buckhorn

Lake project, and the Tranter's Creek, Nahunta Swamp and Contentnea Creek

projects involving stream channelization. It is possible that some changes

may be made in some of these projects as a result of the objections raised

in the reviews of the draft environmental statements.

Indirect Effects on Agency Programs

Apart from the direct effects on proposed projects discussed above,

there have been significant indirect effects on the water-resource pro-

grams of Federal agencies. For example, the controversy over stream

channelization projects in eastern North Carolina, typified by the Chicod

Creek case, has led to a general slowdown in stream channelization.

activity by both the Soil Conservation Service and the Corps of Engineers.

Some projects originally approved for construction in the 1960's but not

yet started may be dropped or drastically redesigned. Planning for future

projects involving channelization will also be drastically affected.

The emphasis of the Corps of 2ngineers river basin programs is also

shifting from major multiple-purpose reservoirs to more broader concerns

for water quality, flood plain management, and environmental programs.

The delays encountered by the Corps in moving forward on the New Hope Lake,

Falls Lake, Buckhorn Lake and Clinchfield Reservoir has led the Corps to

restudy the authorized Randleman and Howard Mills reservoir projects, prior

to preparing environmental statements for them. Also, it is reasonable

to conclude that environmental values will be given greater weight by the

Corps in its future planning for additional reservoirs than was the case

in the past.

The TVA appears to have deferred its development program in the French

Broad river basin, and it is possible that few if any of the proposed reser-

voirs will be built in the foreseeable future.

Indirect effects of the environmental statement requirement on the

State highway program appear to be small. The actual mix of highway pro-

jects and their rate of development do not seem to be affected. In con-

trast to examples of stream channelization and reservoir projects dis-

cussed above, the environment statement process has not called into question

the need for highway projects. Of course, the newly adopted North Carolina

Action Plan for highway planning and development will have the effect of

taking environmental values into account in all stages of the planning

process.

Other programs such as Atomic Energy Commission approval of construc-

tion of nuclear power plants have been indirectly affected only through

the delays incident to the preparation and review of environmental state-

ments. It is generally true, however, that public programs of a develop-

mental nature have been and will continue to be delayed and their rationale

called into question by the operation of the environmental statement pro-

cess, with the effect that the magnitude and scope of most of the develop-

ment programs will be reduced from levels that could have beenexpected

otherwise.

14odifications in Agency Planning Procedures

The N.EPA requirements for environmental statements have led to major

changes in planning procedures by the Corps of Engineers', the State High-

way Division and the Atomic Energy Commission. The Soil Conservation Ser-
vice is also considering important'@c*hanges in its planning procedures. All

of these changes have the effect of injecting environmental quality values

into the early stages of planning and of greatly expanding the role of the

public in the planning process.

Corps of Engineers. As discussed by Andrews (1972), the Corps of

Engineers very early established the policy that environmental impacts

would be fully considered from the very start of planning, and that prepara-

tion of the five-point statement required by Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA

would be an integral part of the preauthorization survey process (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers EC1165-2-86, April 30, 1970). Later instructions

specified that possible environmental impacts were to be identified and

assessed in a preliminary way at the first public meeting or "checkpoint

conference" of a study. All environmental impacts and effects were to be

discussed at the second public meeting of the study; at or following this

stage, the Corps district office was to prepare a preliminary draft state-

ment for first review by other agencies and by the public. At the third

and final public meeting, a specific and thorough discussion of environ-

mental impacts and effects of all &1ternatives would be carried out. Under

this procedure a substantial body of information and analysis and public

reaction thereto would have been collected before a draft environmental

statement was prepared and circulated (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

EC1120-2-56, September 25, 1970). Subsequent instructions by the Corps

to its Districts and Divisions reiterated the basic policy and put increased

emphasis on the incorporation of public participation at all stages of the

planning process (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EC1165-2-100, May 28, 1971).

These changes in procedures were consistent with the changes being developed

in the overall Water Resources Council principles and standards for planning

water-resource projects, which provided that environmental quality be a

major objective on a par with economic efficiency. Thus, by the time that

these principles and staridards were approved by the President in October

1973, the Corps had already provided that environmental quality be given

full consideration in its planning process.

Soil Conservation Service. With respect to the Soil Conservation Ser-

vice, Andrews (1972) reports that as of late 1971 its policy response to

NEPA:

... appeared designed to minimize or prevent change in its
relationship to its client sponsoring organizations. SCS
procedures for preparation of environmental statements de-
layed public disclosure of them even in draft form until
tentative agreement on a final work plan had been reached
between the agency and the sponsor. The SCS directed only
that "adequate information" be given to the public through-
out the process up to the time that a final work plan was
reached, rather than opportunities to review and comment
upon the environmental statement itself.

Andrews' references are to the Soil Conservation Service's environ-

mental guidelines of April 7 and December 7, 1971. Supplements to these

guidelines have changed the situation to some degree. In July 1973 the

Service established guidelines for encouraging participation by local

agencies and citizens' groups throughout the entire process of planning

of watershed projects (Soil Conservation Service, Environment Memorandum

15, 1973). Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Nati onal Wildlife

Federation, and others were included along with Federal, State and local

agencies in a sample list of agencies, groups and organizations. On the

other hand, the Service has not yet changed its overall planning procedures

so as to include environmental quality considerations at each step in the

planning process. A draft,proposal to accomplish this was prepared by the

Service staff in 1972, but was never adopted by the agency. The chart of

the planning process in this proposal is remarkably consistent with Figure

II.1 in this report, which depicts how environmental considerations would

enter the water-resource plahning process. Two key features of the Service

proposal were (1) an environmental assessment report to be available for

discussion at public meetings on results of preliminary project investiga-

tions, and (2) a preliminary environmental statement to be available for

discussion at public meetings when the draft work plan was being prepared.

If the Soil Conservation Service were to revise its planning process

along these lines, its planning procedures would be analogous to those

adopted by the Corps of Engineers and would also be consistent with the

revised principles and standards of the Water Resources Council. In

August 1973 the Service announced that its environmental guidelines were

being revised to bring them into conformity with the revised CEQ guide-

lines of August 1, 1973.

Problems of public access to information on Soil Conservation Service

small watershed plans in North Car6lina are greatly alleviated by an Act

passed by the Legislature in 1971 that requires a public hearing for every

water-resource project proposed by the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation

Service or TVA that would involve stream channel excavation (N.C. Gen.

Stat. Sect. 139-147). The hearing is to be held in the county or counties

where the project would be located, and is to be at the preliminary in-

vestigation stage of the Soil Conservation Service planning process.

Adequate public notice is to be provided. Although this Act is no sub-

stitute for a full-scale revision of the Service's planning process, it

does help to inject environmental considerations early in the planning

process via public participation.

State Division of Highways. The planning of Federal aid highways in

North Carolina is governed by policies and procedures established by the

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Prior

to enactment of NEPA, the Federal Highway Administration had established

procedures under which (1) public hearings would be held at the highway

corridor location and detailed highway design stages, and (2) consideration

would be given by highway planners to social, economic and environmental

effects of alternative highway location and designs (U.S. Federal Highway

Administration, 1969). Following enactment of NEPA and publication of

the CEQ guidelines, the Federal Highway Administration on September 7,

1972, issued comprehensive and detailed guidelines for preparing and cir-

culating environmental statements and for integrating them into the

Administration's highway planning process (U.S. Federal Highway Administra-

tion, 1972a). The net effect of these guidelines was to require considera-

tion of environmental effects early in the planning process. Thus, at the

stage when alternative locations are studied, the environmental impacts

are evaluated; if found to be significant, a draft environmental statement

is prepared, circulated to Federal and State agencies, and made publicly

available at least 30 days before a public hearing is to be held on the

alternative locations. If environmental effects are found not to be

significant, a "negative declaration" statement is prepared and also made

available to the public at or prior to the public hearing.

These guidelines were supplemented by Federal Highway Administration

requirements issued in August 1972 and June 1973 calling for each State

highway agency to develop an "Action Plan" that would describe the organiza-

tion to be used and the processes to be followed in developing Federal-

aid highway projects from the initial system planning through design, in

order to assure that social, economic and environmental effects would be

fully considered (U.S. Federal Highway Administration, 1972b, 1973). In

compliance with these requirements, the North Carolina Department of

Transportation and Highway Safety completed the North Carolina Highway

Action Plan (1973) by November 1973. The Action Plan also includes

establishment in the State Division of Highways of an environmental

planning section to provide a basic capability for analyzing social,

economic and environmental effects of highway projects. It is proposed

that this section be fully staffed by September 1974.

It is clear that the Federal and State policy and procedural ground-

work has been laid to enable environmental factors to be fully accommodated

in State highway planning in a setting where there is substantial public

involvement throughout the planning. To the extent that these provisions

of the Action Plan are effectively carried out, environmental statements

will more and more become a report of the solution of environmental issues

rather than a warning signal of issues as yet unresolved.

Atomic Energy Commission. Initially, the Atomic Energy Commission

took a narrow view of the environmental statement requirements of NEPA,

but, following the Calvert Cliffs decision in 1971 (Calvert Cliffs'

Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 1971), the Commission

moved positively to change its licensing procedures and requirements so

as to emphasize environmental considerations early in the planning pro-

cess (Andrews, 1972). Its interim guidelines of August 1971 required that

environmental statements contain complete information on thermal and other

water quality effects, on alternative methods of heat dissipation, including

costs, on other environmental effects and on projected power needs and

alternative methods of generation. The Atomic Energy Commission has fur-

ther expanded and refined its guidelines, including the development of a

benefit-cost methodology for use in preparing environmental statements.

However, as the initiative for proposing nuclear power plants lies with the

licensee--typically a privately-owned electric utility--environmental con-

siderations are likely to enter the planning only after the basic decisions

on what, where and when to build have already been made.

The Role of Litigation

It should be clear from the previous discussion of individual environ-

mental statements that court suits brought principally by environmental

groups have played a significant role in bringing environmental values to

the fore in North Carolina. One could argue as others have done that, in

North Carolina as elsewhere in the nation, the major impact of NEPA on

public policy and programs has been through the court suit (Andrews, 1972;

Anderson, 1973). Thus, the ability of the Plaintiffs in the New Hope case

to obtain a temporary injunction halting construction of an on-going project,

and to obtain a Consent Agreement with the Corps of Engineers involving a

restudy of how the reservoir is to be operated, with subsequent Court de-

termination of this issue, is truly noteworthy. The pending court suit on

the Falls Lake project is delaying work on this project which has been

authorized for construction since 1965 and is currently in the land

acquisition stage of pre-construction. In part because of local opposi-

tion to the project, the Corps of Engineers made a thoroughgoing revision

of its first environmental statement on the project (Falls Lake Final

Environmental Statement [Revised] March 1974). The future of the project

may now be in question,'as the delays incident to the court suit allow new

questions to be raised concerning the project plan.

Similarly, the landmark court suit over the Chicod Creek project has

served to delay and to stimulate reconsideration of, not only Chicod Creek,

but also most pending stream channelization projects in the State. in

fact, as the Natural Resources Defense Council (1974) puts it:

The fate of over 100,000 miles of America's rivers
and streams and millions of acres of irreplaceable
wetlands may hinge upon the outcome of a legal
battle over a small southern stream called Chicod
Creek.

Whatever the specific outcome of this suit, there has already been a major

inhibiting effect on the stream channelization activities in North Carolina

of both the Soil Conservation Service and the Corps of Engineers.

In addition, the indirect effect of the New Hope and Falls Lake law-

suits on other multiple-purpose reservoirs in North Carolina has been to

delay activity on them, to stimulate their restudy, or in some cases to

force postponement if not abandonment. A longer-range effect may well be

practically to eliminate future consideration of any multiple-purpose

reservoirs not already planned.

It should be clear that the litigation, although contributing posi-

tively to enviroamental objectives, has also been costly not only in terms

of costs to both parties of advancing the suit and the defense, but also

in the losses and increased costs associated with delays and redesign of

projects. These costs may be defensible in a period of transition when

environmental values are moving toward parity with developmental objectives

in the public decision arena. But, such costs should not be accepted as

inevitable consequences for the future. In fact, court suits are sympto-

matic of inadequacies and failures of planning and policy which can best

be eliminated by fundamental changes in the planning process, administra-

tive organization and water-resource institutions.

Effect on Public Participation

As revealed in the preceding discussion, the environmental statement

process has served to increase the amount of public interest and participa-

tion in planning and decisions involving water resources in North Carolina.

The basic thrust of NEPA and of CEQ guidelines is to expand opportunities

for the public to obtain information on public plans and projects and their

environmental consequences. This trend in policy can be traced through

the planning guidelines and procedures of the major development agencies,

including the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service and the Federal

Highway Administration.

Public participation, however, is still seen by most of the development

agencies as involving attendance at public meetings or hearings held at a

few key stages of the planning process--typically at the beginning, perhaps

near the middle, and finally at the end when an agency plan is unveiled.

The Corps of Engineers has begun attempts to involve the public in the

planning process on a more systematic basis than heretofore; and is currently

using the Crabtree Creek study as a trial case. The subject of public

participation in water-resource planning is now under intensive study in

the Southeast; a regional conference on important issues of public partici-

pation in water-resource planning sponsored by the Water Resources Research

Institutes of the South Atlantic-Gulf States in June 1974 promises to pro-

vide additional information on this vital topic.

Relation to the Water Resource Planning and Decision Model

In formal terms, the current situation with regard to water-resource

planning and environmental statement preparation in North Carolina conforms

rather closely to the model depicted in Chapter II. At the Federal govern-

ment level, the policy prescription of NEPA, the Federal Water Pollution

Control Amendments of 1972, the CEQ and Federal agency environmental state-

ment guidelines, and the Water Resource Council principles, standards

and procedures for water-resource planning all emphasize environmental

quality as an important national objective. At the State government level,

the policy prescriptions of NCEPA and the January 1974 report of the North

Carolina Council on State Goals and Policy (Howells, 1974) also establish

environmental quality as a major State goal to be considered along with

economic development and social progress.

Criteria and Standards. Similarly, a start has been made by the

Water Resources Council and the Federal water-resource agencies in develop-

ing criteria and standards for evaluating environmental quality effects.

For example, the Water Resources Council and the Office of Water Resources

Research, Department of the Interior are currently sponsoring a training

program for Federal, State and regional water-resource staff on the appli-

cation of the Water Resources Council's principles, standards and procedures

to current water-resource planning. This program will be conducted at

Colorado State University from August 12 to 23, 1974. At the State level,

the Department of Natural and Economic Resources is proposing to reorganize

its planning activities to achieve, among ot her improvements, a greatly

increased capability for environmental quality analysis and evaluation.

Also, the Highway Action Plan of the Department of Transportation and

Highway Safety provides for establishment of an environmental planning

staff with capability for analysis and evaluation of environmental aspects

of transportation planning.

Plan Formulation. As discussed earlier in this Chapter, most Federal

water-resource agency planning guidelines emphasize the consideration of

environmental factors early in the plan formulation process. In addition,

the State of North Carolina has improved its participation in water-resource

planning by establishing the North Carolina Water Plan Coordinating Committee

in the Department of Natural and Economic Resources to coordinate the

water-resource activities of all State agencies, to seek resolution of con-

flicts and recommend measures for increasing public participation in

water-resource planning, and to advance the completion of a water-resources

plan for North Carolina (Memorandum from Chairman, North Carolina Water

Plan Coordinating Committee, February 25, 1974). The principal activity

of this committee has been the preparation of a study on stream channeliza-

tion for consideration by the Secretary of Natural and Economic Resources.

At least at the formal level, environmental quality considerations have

been built into the plan formulation processes of almost all Federal and

State agencies concerned with water-resources or with development of pro-

jects that have water-resource effects.

At the operational level, in contrast, the water-resource planning

process in North Carolina does not incorporate environmental considerations

to the extent and degree specified by the model depicted in Chapter II.

Federal agencies have had little experience as yet in implementing the

Water Resources Council's principles, standards and procedures. Also,

public participation in water-resource planning at a level higher than

attendance at public hearings is in an embryonic stage of development.

Furthermore, most water-resource planning agencies have limited expertise

in environmental fields, especially those concerned with natural bio-

logical systems, including fisheries, wildlife, wetlands and forests.

Perhaps it is too much to expect that a water-resource development agency

such as the Corps of Engineers or the Office of Water and Air Resources

can do effective planning for environmental values such as fisheries,

wildlife and natural ecosystems. Under present circumstances, it is not

unreasonable for environmental agencies and interest groups to be skeptical

on this point.

The logical implication to be drawn from this attitude is that environ-

mental agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North

Carolina Office of Fisheries and Wildlife should participate in the planning

of water-resources from the beginning and join in formulating and sponsoring

the final plan and the associated environmental statement. Since enactment

of the Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, there has been a long history of

participation by State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies in Federal

water-resource planning. From the point of view of fishery and wildlife

interests, much of this experience has been unsatisfactory; they assert

that, more often than not, development objectives override preservation

goals, and only token consideration is given to preserving fishery and

wildlife resources and habitats. To these interests and the agencies

that hold these views, NEPA has been very helpful in promoting environ-

mental values, and the requirement for environmental statements has been

especially valuable. Accordingly, although fish and wildlife agencies

and non-governmental environmental groups wish to keep abreast of water-

resource planning at all stages and to be able to advance their views

at key points in the process, they also wish to remain free to criticize

and even oppose the final plan, typically via comments on the draft en-

vironmental statement. This attitude of reserving one's right is incon-

sistent with full participation in the planning process, which implies

agreement on a final plan and a willingness to support it.

It appears, therefore, that, given the basic differences in values

and orientation of the various agencies and interests involved in water-

resource and natural-resource planning, no neat solution to the problem of

multiple-objective planning for developmental and environmental values is

at hand. The prescriptions of the model of Chapter II should be promoted

and every effort should be made to involve all divergent interests early

in the planning of water-resources. But, there should not be sole reliance

on this approach. Rather, the environmental statement procedure should be

continued and its working should be improved, to serve as a valuable check

of current public and official attitudes and policies toward environmental

quality. Hopefully, resolution of development-environmental issues will

be largely accomplished at the plan formulation stages of planning, so that

the environmental statement becomes a report to the general public and the

policymakers of environment values preserved as development objectives are

served.

REFERENCES

Andrews, Richard N. L., 'Environmental Policy and Administrative Change:
The National Environmental Polity Act of 1969, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1972.

Anderson, Frederick R., NEPA _in th&Courts, Resources for the Future, Inc.,
Washington, D.C. , 1 73.

Brussat, William K., "Knowing Your A--95," Urban Land, March 1973, pp. 14-19.

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.
@ 2d 1109, 1 ELR 20346 (D.C. Cir 1971).

Chapel Hill Newspaper, June 16, 1974.

Conservation Council of North Carolina v. Froelke, 340 F. Supp. 222, 2 ELR
20155 (M.D. N. Car.).

Falls Lake: Final Environmental Statement [Revised], Wilmington District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 1974.

Greensboro Daily News, June 18, 1972.

Harton, Thomas G., The State of Water Resource Management in North Carolina,
paper delivered at the April 1972 meeting of the Southeast Basins
Interagency Committee, 1972.

Howells, David H., Water Resource Problems and Research Needs of North
Carolina: A Reassessment, UNC Water Resources Research Institute
Report No. 2 [Revised], June 1, 1974.

Hufschmidt, Maynard M., Water-Resource Planning in the Urban-Metropolitan
Context. Report to the U.S. Office of Water Resources Research, Title
II Project No. C-1159, 1971.

The Metropolitan Planning Process: An Exploratory Study
Summary Report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Urban Planning Research and Demonstration Program Project No. North
Carolina PD-3, 1971.

"Environmental Quality as a Policy and Planning Objective,"
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 37, No. 4,
July 1971, pp. 231-241.

Kaiser, Edward J., et al., Promoting Environmental Quality through Urban
Planning and Controls, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.

Haass, Arthur A., et al., Design of Water-Resource System , Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1962.

Memorandum, Chairman, North Carolina Water Plan Coordinating Committee,
February 25, 1974.

Mogulof, Melvin B., Governing Metropolitan Areas, The Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C., 1971.

Moreau, David H., Regional Water Resource Planning for Urban Needs, Part
1, UNC Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 77, 1973.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, January 1,
1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).

National Water Commission, Water Policies for the Future, Final Report
to the President and the Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1973.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Grant, 341 F. Supp. 356, 2 ELR 20185
(E.D. N. Car. 1972); 3 ELR 20176 (E.D. N. Car. 1973).

Natural Resources Defense Council, General Letter to its supporters,
June 1974.

North Carolina Clearinghouse and Information Center, Clearinghouse Procedures
Manual for the Project Notification and Review System, Revised, January
1974.

North Carolina Clearinghouse Procedures Manual for the Project Notification
and Review System, N.C. Department of Administration, Clearinghouse
and Information Center, March 1971.

North Carolina Council on State Goals and Policy Actof 1971, N.C. Gen Stat.,
Art. 54, par. 143. 476-143.482.

North Carolina Council on State Goals and Policy, The North Carolina Environ-
mental Policy Act and Environmental Impact Statement System, 1972.

, Second Annual Report, 1973.

North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety, Division of
Highways, North Carolina Hig:away Action Plan, November 1973.

North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (1971, c 1203, s.1; Chap.
113A, Arts. 1, Sect. 113A-1-113A-10).

North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1973. Chap. 119 S. 23.

North Carolina General Statutes, Sections 139-147.

North Carolina State Clearinghouse, Mills River Dam and Reservoir, TVA,
file 1971.

North Carolina Water Plan-Progress Report, Chapter 26, Broad River Basin
Volume 2, Office of Water and Air Resources, Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, 1974.

President's Water Resources Council, Policies, Standards, and Procedures
in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review Plans for Use and Develop
ment of Water and Related Land Resources, Senate Doc. 97, 87th Cong.
2d. Session, 1962.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Policies and Authorities:
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, EC 1165-2-86, April 30,
1970.

,Inves igation, Planning and Development of Water Resources:
Preparation and Coordination of Environmental Statements: EC 1120-2-56,
September 25, 1970.

, Public Participation in Water Resource Planning, May 28, 1971.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Revised Draft Environmental Statement,
Shearon Harris Plant, January 1974.

U.S. Bureau of the Budget, Circular No. A-95, July 24, 1969.

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Interim Guidelines, Statements on
Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Environment,.April 30, 1970
(F.R. Doc. 70-5769; Filed May 11, 1970).

. State nts on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Environ-
ment: Guiaelines, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 7724-7729, filed April 23, 1971).

Environmental Quality, L973, Fourth Annual Report, 1973.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposal for Part 6: Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements, January 20, 1972 (37 Fed. Reg. 879).

U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, Policy
and Procedure Memorandum 20-8, Public Hearings and Location Approval,
January 14, 1969.

Policy and Procedure 'Memorandum 90-1, Environmental Impact and
Related Statements, September 7, 1972.

. Instructional Memorandum 20-4-72, Guidelines for Consideration
of Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects, August 30, 1972.

Policv and Procedure Memorandum 90.4, Proce s Gudielines
(Social, Economic, and Environmental Effects of Highway Projects),
June 1, 1973.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Watersheds Memorandum 108, Guidelines for
Planning and Review of Channel Improvement, February 4, 1971.

, Environment Memorandum 1, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines
for Implementation of NEPA, March 19, 1971.

, Environment Memorandum 15, Local Participation in Planning,
July 20, 1973.

Draft Environmental Statement [Revised] Chicod Creek Watershed,
May 1974.

U.S. Water Resources Council, Proposed Principles and Standards for Planning
Water and Related Land Resources (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 245,
Dec. 21, 1971, pp. 24144-25194).

, Water and Related Land Resources: Establishment of Principles
and Standards for Planning (Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 174, Sept.
10, 1973, pp. 24778-24869).

Wallace, James C., The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: An Analysis
of its Impact on the New Hope Dam Project, Masters of Science in Public
Health report, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department
of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, 1974.

Wise, Harold F. and Associates, Inc., Regional Planning in North Carolina,
State Planning Report 132.02, May 1971, pp. 80-81.

APPENDIX A

North Carolina Environmental Statements Affecting Water Resources
(Filed Prior to February 1, 1974)

I. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

A. Navigation

Chowan River Basin
1. Channel dredging of Chowan River, Gates and Hertford
Counties, draft statement submitted January, 1972;
final statement submitted March, 1972.

Pasquotank River Basin
1. Maintenance dredging of Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, Dare
County, final statement submitted November, 1970.

Neuse River Basin
1. Channel dredging of Dawson Creek, Pamlico County, final
statement submitted February, 1971.
2. Channel dredging of Neuse River, Craven County, draft
statement submitted August, 1972.
3. Neuse River Channel extension to Streets Ferry, Craven
County, draft statement submitted December, 1972.

White Oak River Basin
1. Channel and harbor dredging of Pamlico River and Morehead
City Harbor, Carteret, Pamlico and Beaufort Counties,
final statement submitted November, 1970.
2. Channel and basin dredging of Atlantic Harbor of refuge,
Carteret County, draft statement submitted May, 1971;
final statement submitted October, 1971.
3. Channel dredging of Drum Inlet, Carteret County, draft
statement submitted May, 1971; final statement sub-
mitted August, 1971.
4. Jetties at Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City Harbor, Carteret
County, draft statement submitted October, 1971.
5. Maintenance dredging, Channel from Back Sound to Lookout
Bight, Carteret County, draft statement submitted June,
1973.
6. Deeper navigation project, Davis, Carteret County, draft
statement submitted December, 1973.

Cape Fear River Basin
1. Maintenance channel and basin dredging of Military Ocean
Terminal, Sunny Point, Brunswick and New Hanover
Counties, draft statement submitted March, 1972;
final statement submitted May, 1972.

Lumber River Basin
1. Channel dredging, jetties, dikes at Little River Inlet,
Brunswick County, draft statement submitted January,
1972; final statement submitted October, 1972.

Other
1. Five Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway Bridges, final state-
ment submitted November, 1970.

B. Beach Erosion and Hurricane Protection

1. Dune and berm construction on Ocracoke Island, Hyde County,
final statement submitted November, 1970.
2. Dune and berm construction at Brunswick County beaches,
final statement submitted February, 1971.
3. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Field Research Facility
at Duck, N.C., Dare County, draft statement submitted
February, 1973.

C. Multiple-Purpose Reservoirs

Neuse River Basin
1. Falls Lake earth dam and reservoir, Wake, Durham and Granville
Counties, final statement submitted April, 1971; revised
draft statement submitted August, 1973, final, May, 1974.
2. Buckhorn Lake earth dam and reservoir, Wilson, Nash and
Johnston Counties, preliminary statement submitted June,
1972.

Cape Fear River Basin
1. New Hope Lake earth dam and reservoir (B. Everett Jordan
Reservoir) Chatham, Orange and Durham Counties, draft
statement submitted May, 1971, final statement submitted
October, 1971.

Yadkin River Basin
1. Roaring River dam and reservoir, Wilkes County, draft state-
ment submitted May, 1972.
2. Reddies River Lake, dam and reservoir, draft statement sub-
mitted September, 1973.

Broad River Basin
1. Clinchfield dam and reservoir, Polk and Rutherford Counties,
draft statement submitted June, 1972.

D. Flood Control

Tar-Pamlico River Basin
1. Channelization of Broad Creek, Beaufort County, final state-
ment submitted November, 1970.

2. Channelization, snagging and clearing of Tranters Creek,
Martin, Beaufort and Pitt Counties, draft statement
submitted June, 1971.

Neuse River Basin
1. Channelization and single purpose reservoir in Nahunta Swamp
Basin, Wayne and Greene Counties, draft statement sub-
mitted September, 1971.
2. Snagging and clearing of Contentnea Creek, Lenoir and Pitt
Counties, draft statement submitted September, 1971.
3. Channeli@ation of Adkin Branch, Lenoir County, final state-
ment submitted March, 1972.

Cape Fear River Basin
1. Channelization, snagging and clearing of Rockfish and Docktors
Creeks, Duplin, Pender and Sampson Counties, final state-
ment submitted September, 1971.

Catawba River Basin
1. Channelization of Sugar and Briar Creeks, Charlotte, draft
statement submitted October, 1971; final statement sub-
mitted February, 1972.

Other Federal Agencies

A. Tennessee Valley Authority

1. Mills River Dam and multiple purpose reservoir, Henderson
County, French Broad River Basin, draft statement s.ub-
mitted June, 1971.
2. Treatment for Eurasiaa Watermilfoil in TVA reservoirs, draft
statement submitted February, 1972; final statement sub-
mitted October, 1972.
3. Vector Control Program for TVA lands and water, draft state-
ment submitted February, 1973.

B. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service

1. Land treatment and construction of multipurpose reservoir in
Long Creek portion of Tallulah Creek Watershed, Graham
County, Little Tennessee River Basin, draft statement
submitted November, 1971.
2. Cooperative 1972 Gypsy Moth Suppression and Regulatory Program,
draft statement submitted January, 1972; final statement
submitted April, 1972.
3. Ten Year Management Proposal, Mills River Unit, Pisgah National
Forest, Buncombe, Henderson and Transylvania Counties, French
Broad River Basin, draft statement submitted December, 1972,
final statement submitted May, 1973.
4. Cooperative 1973 Gypsy Moth Suppression and Regulatory Program,
draft statement submitted January, 1973; final statement
submitted April, 1973.

5. Management of Wilson Creek Unit, Pisgah National Forest,
draft statement submitted June, 1973; final statement
submitted December, 1973.
6. Study of National Forest Roadless and 'Undeveloped Areas,
final statement submitted October, 1973.
7. Cooperative 1974 Gypsy Moth Suppression and Regulatory
Program, draft statement submitted January, 1974.

C. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service

1. Rural Environmental Conservation Program (statewide), draft
statement submitted January, 1974.

D. Department of Ag_@i ulture: Rural Electrification Administration

1. Transmission Lines North Wilkesboro to Horse Gap (230 kv)
to Boone (100 kv), Wilkes, Watauga and Ashe Counties,
New and Yadkin River Basins, draft statement submitted
June, 1972; final statement submitted November, 1972.

E. Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service

1. Chicod Creek watershed stream channelization and land treat-
ment, Pitt and Beaufort Counties, Tar-Pamlico River Basin,
draft statement submitted April, 1972; final statement
submitted July, 1972.
2. Tallulah Creek Watershed, Long Creek portion, land treatment
and construction of multipurpose reservoir, Graham County,
Little Tennessee River Basin, final statement submitted
November, 1972.
3. Bryant Swamp watershed, stream channelization and land treat-
ment, Bladen County, draft statement submitted June, 1973.

F. Department of the Interior: Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

1. Amendment No. 3 to Eno River Park Area acquisition, Durham
County, draft submitted April, 1972.

G. Water Resources Council: Ohio River Basin Commission

1. Kanawha River Comprehensive Report, New River Basin, draft
stateff..,ent submitted October, 1971.

H. Federal Power Commission

1. Blue Ridge Project No. 2317, Alleghany County, New River
Basin, draft statement submitted June, 1971; modified
project draft statement submitted February, 1973; final
statement submitted June, 1973.

100

2. License renewal, Nantahala Power and Light Co. Project No.
2692, Macon and Clay Counties, Hiwassee River Basin,
draft statement submitted April, 1972.
3. License renewal, Green River Project No. 2563, Henderson
and Polk Counties, Broad River Basin, draft statement
submitted July, 1972.

I. Atomic Energy Commission

1. Brunswick Steam ElectriciPlant Units 1 and 2, Brunswick
County, Cape Fear River Basin, draft statement sub-
mitted January, 1974.
2. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 to 4, Wake
and Chatham Counties, Cape Fear River Basin, statement
submitted February, 1972 and revised March, 1972; draft
statement submitted November, 1972; final statement
submitted May, 1973; revised draft statement submitted
January, 1974.
3. William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Mecklenburg County,
Catawba River Basin, draft statement submitted July,
1972; final statement submitted October, 1972.
4. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Power Plant, Unit 2 (nuclear),
Hartsville, Darlington County, S.C., Yadkin River Basin,
draft statement submitted May, 1973.
5. Catawba Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, York County,
S.C., Yadkin River Basin, draft statement submitted May,
1973; final statement submitted December, 1973.

J. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Marion wastewater treatment facilities, McDowell County,
draft statement submitted July, 1973.

K. Department of Housing and Urban Development

1. Soul City New Community, Warren County, Roanoke River Basin,
draft statement submitted October, 1971; final statement
submitted February, 1972.

L. Economic Development Agency

1. Soul City New Community development of a regional water
supply system, Granville, Vance and Warren Counties,
supplemental statement to final statement submitted
May, 1973.

M. Department of Defense

1. Military exercise "Exotic Dancer V" causing pollution, Jones
Onslow, Pender, Duplin, Craven, Carteret, Lenoir Counties
and the Croatan National Forest, Cape Fear, White Oak and
Neuse River Basins, draft statement submitted March, 1972;
final statement submitted May, 1972.

101

III. North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety:
Division of Highways

Fifty-eight draft and final statements and negative declarations
were submitted (through March, 1973) for highway projects involving
bridges, culverts, temporary siltation of waterways through erosion
during construction, small increases in runoff, and other similar
impacts.

In addition the following nineteen statements recognized channel
alterations, direct filling operations, clearing and grubbing, re-
moval of hydraulic fill, and other similar impacts.

1. US 25 and 70 from Weaverville to Marshall, Madison County, French
Broad River Basin, channel changes, clearing and grubbing,
final statement submitted January, 1972.
2. NC 213 Marshall to Mars Hill, Madison County, French Broad River
Basin, channel alterations, final statement submitted January,
1972.
3. Kannapolis, Lane Street from 1-85 to Cannon Blvd., Cabarrus
.County, Yadkin River Basin, channelization, filling of Lake
Fisher, draft statement submitted January, 1972.
4. US 74 from West of Hallsboro to East of Bolton, Columbus County,
Lumber River Basin, through Friar Swamp, draft statement
submitted January, 1972; final statement submitted November,
1972.
5. NC 86 Yanceyville to Prospect Hill between NC 119 and SR 1774,
Caswell County, Roanoke River Basin, channel change in Lynch
Creek, negative declaration submitted February, 1972.
6. NC 24 Fayetteville, Bridge over Cape Fear River, Cumberland County,
Cape Fear River Basin, channel changes to Cross and Lock
Creeks, final statement submitted February, 1972.
7. US 64 Rosman to Brevard, Transylvania County, French Broad River
Basin, channel alterations to French Broad River and other
creeks, draft statement submitted February, 1972.
8. 1-40 from NC 9 at Black Mountain to US 70 at Old Fort, Buncombe
and McDowell Counties, French Broad River Basin, clearing
and grubbing, 3 channel alterations to Swannanoa River, draft
statement submitted February, 1972.
9. NC 731 Extension from Mount Gilead to Norwood, Montgomery and
Stanley Counties, Yadkin River Basin, channel changes on Clarks
Creek and Timms Branch, negative declaration submitted March,
1972.
10. US 70 relocation from Dover to New Bern Bypass, Jones and Craven
Counties, Neuse River Basin, through Great Dover Swamp, final
statement submitted March, 1972.
11. US 70 Bypass of New Bern, Craven County, Neuse River Basin, through
marsh, use of hydraulic fill, draft statement submitted June,
1971; final statement submitted March, 1972.
12. US 221 from Baldwin to Jefferson, Ashe County, New River Basin,
channel changes, draft statement submitted April, 1972; final
statement submitted December, 1972.

102

13. US 19A-441 from Sylva Bypass to Junction US 19A-441 at Gateway,
Jackson County, Little Tennessee River Basin, fill in
Tuckaseigee River channel, draft statement submitted July,
1971; negative declaration statement submitted May, 1972.
14. SR 1211 from US 129 near Robbinsville to NC 28, Graham County,
Little Tennessee River Basin, channel alterations of Sweet-
water Creek, clearing and grubbing, final statement submitted
June, 1972.
15. US 441 Gateway to Cherokee, Jackson and Swain Counties, Little
Tennessee River Basin, channel alterations, draft statement
submitted August, 1972.
16. US 74, 76, 17 reconstruction, Alligator Creek to Bellville,
Brunswick County, Cape Fear River Basin, two bridges across
Brunswick River, hydraulic fill on Eagles' Island from 2 up-
land sites and the3runswick River, sedimentation pond, draft
statement submitted February, 1973.
17. US 25 from SR 1101 to the US 25-1-26 Connector, Henderson County,
French Broad River Basin, bridge over and channel change to
Green River, siltation of Lake Summit, stream crossings, draft
statement submitted November, 1972.
18. US 74-76 from Chadbourn to SR 1700 East of Whiteville, Columbus
County, Lumber River Basin, crosses Juniper Creek and White
Marsh Swamp, negative declaration submitted December, 1972.
19. Interchange on 1-26 at SR 1722, Hendersonville, Henderson County,
change to Bat Fork Creek, negative declaration submitted March,
1973.

IV. North Carolina State Agencies: Statements Filed Under NCEPA

A. Department of Natural and Economic Resources: Office of Water
and Air Resources

1. Uniflite Canal Project, Onslow County, Cape Fear River Basin,
statement submitted March, 1972.
2. Long Bay-Nelson Bay Canal Project, Carteret County, White Oak
River Basins, statement submitted October, 1972.
3. Atlantic Beach Access Channel, Carteret County, White Oak
River Basin, statement submitted December, 1972.
4. Avon Harbor Entrance Stabilization Project, Dare County,
statement submitted May, 1973.
5. Stumpy Point Access Channel, Dare County, statement submitted
January, 1974.

B. Department of Natural and 8conomic Resources: Office of Forest
Resources

1. Dare Bombing Range Flooding Project, Dare County, Pasquotank
River Basin, statement submitted December, 1972.

103 -

C. Wildlife Resources Commission

1. Goose Creek Game Lands, salt marsh impoundment, Pamlico County,
statement submitted August, 1973.

D. Department of Administration: Marine Science Council

1. Carteret County Marine Resource Facility, White Oak River
Basin, draft statement submitted September, 1972; final
statement submitted November, 1972.
2. Dare County Marine Resource Facility, Pasquotank River Basin,
draft statement submitted September, 1972; final statement
submitted December, 1972.
3. New Hanover County Marine Resource Facility, Cape Fear River
Basin, draft statement submitted September, 1972; final
statement submitted December, 1972.

104

APPENDIX B

Summary of Analysis of Selected Environmental Statements
of the Division of Highways, Department of Transportation
and Highway Safetyl

Introduction

Ten environmental statements and one negative declaration, submitted

by the North Carolina State Highway Commission (now the Division of High-

ways, Department of Transportation and Highway Safety) to the Federal High-

way Administration and circulated among different state and federal agencies,

for different highway projects, were examined. This sample of statements

was selected after a rapid review of most of the statements submitted prior

to late 1972 by the State Highway Commission. They were chosen as typical

of statements for those projects likely to have the greatest effect on

North Carolina water resources, based on the description of the project

and its components given in each statement. This rationale for selection

was based on the premise that, not only would these projects have the most

significant effects, but also the statements would include the most complete

information and assessment of the projects' environmental effects, since

these would be most readily apparent to the highway agency.

A list of the statements chosen is given in Table B.1. 'The sample in-

cludes both draft and final statements, as well as a single negative decla-

ration. The projects range from highway widening to new route locations and

also include different classes of roads, from secondary routes to Inter-

states. The sample is widely dispersed geographically in North Carolina,

from coast to Piedmont to mountains (Figure IV.3. Chapter IV). The projects

1Adapted from a working paper by John D. Edwards, May, 1973.

105

TABLE B. 1. NORTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS AFFECTING WATER RESOURCES

44
0 Cd
0 rA ri) H
rl -4 -4 -4 P "0 rq W 4J
0 $4 Cd a) @4 U) 4-1 1-1 -1 U) 0) r. 44 Q :3
.rq a) -4 $4 a) r. W -H @4 rf .@l 'C ro 4-) W P 0 0
4-1 > 4J > 0 N 44 W LH Q) 44 10 Cd @_A U 0 _H :3 4-4 P W
0 0)4 ra (D bo -ri .,4 r4 > -11 W 'J -,J $4 r-A 0 4J bo 00
:3 0 00 P 4J Cd 0 r-i W @q P M P-4 00 >1 :1 r. r.
-4 0 4J :3 0 -H Cd
NC Clearinghouse file W Q) W $4 ri (U W W Cd M a @-4
4J 00P a) UW k 0 P
W '0 W W W 0 0 a) W CO:
No., project descrip- 19 0 r. 41 0 r160 Q, P @4 Q) W Q) 4-4
ra0 -rn W 4J P W W W W -W 4J $4 -0
tion, statement type, 'z -i 4J 0 0 P 0 W 0 4.3 44 P _H
0 Pri W 0 Q 0 P >I
location P4 ri 1 P4 -rq 0 PQ 4-4 :Z 44 S Pq 00 1
3-72, Lane Street from x x x x x x x
1-85 to Cannon Blvd.
in Kannapolis, draft
statement, Cabarrus
County
6-72,US 74 from West x x x x x
of Hallsboro, to East
of Bolton, draft
statement, Columbus
County
28-72, NC 74 Bridge x x x x x
over Cape Fear River
at Fayetteville, final
statement, Cumberland
County
29-72, 1-40 from NC 9 x x x x x x x
at Black Mountain to
US 70 at Old Fort,
draft statement,
Buncombe & McDowell
Counties
34-72, US 64 Rosman to x x x x x x x
Brevard, draft state-
ment, Transylvania
County

TABLE B.1. NORTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS AFFECTING WATER RESOURCES

0
0 ca W Q)
rq -1 -1 @_A @4 "0 .,1 W a
0 In W @4 - W 4.3 -4 -4 -4 a) 0 44 U )-4 0
.H r-A W a) 9:1 ca ri W rq -r4 4 -0 41 W 4-1 @4 0 0
4J > " '@d M > 0 N 44 (U 44 Q) LH En Cd @A U ;J 44 W
NC Clearinghouse file 0. 0 P co a) bo orA r4 rq > @4 EJ 4J -ri @4 -4 0 4-1 bo
:3 0 W r. P r-A 41 '_4 rq r-A ca -A Q) r-A @4 CO 00 :J 0
P (U W W rq M cu W W Q) ca r-A 0 0 :1 0 -r4 U rA rq
7_4 r
No. , project descrip- U U) g -
4J W W W P 0 Cd a si :0 $4 .14
U3 10 0 0 W 0 41@ 0 13 1110: 0 Q) @4 Q) k@-4 "0 a
tion, statement type, 11 40J W co I W 1 0 2) 1@ 'W-1 10, 110-1 W -w P 4 Cd 00 U a) 0
0 _H > rn 10 0 M
0 W rq a) g P CO 4 r-1 4J 4 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 P 0 P 0 W 0 " 44 W -rq 0 r_q P
location U @0 W @4 U Z U (d U3 U C4 rl U P4 I C4 rq 0 PQ tw M! 44 F1 Pq 0 0 0 4 04 L) 0
44-72, US 70 reloca- x x x x x x
tion-from Dover to New
Bern Bypass, final
statement, Jones and
Craven Counties
45-72, US 70 Bypass of x x x x x x x
New Bern, final state-
ment. Craven Coun1y
C)
71-72, US 19A-441 from x x x x x
Sylva Bypass to Junc-
tion US 19A-441 at
Gateway, negative
declaration, Jackson
rmint-W
76-72, SR 1211 from US x x x x x x
129 near Robbinsville
to NC 28, final state-
ment, Graham County
97-72, 1-40 West of x x x x x x
Raleigh to 1-95 South
of Smithfield, final
statement, Wake and
,Lohnston Counti-Q9
100772, US 441 Gate- x x x x x x
way to Cherokee, draft
statement, Jackson and
Swain Counties

also include a significant range of different types of impacts on water

resources.

In the analysis of these statements, the emphasis is placed on the

statements' identification of water-resource impacts. To the extent that

this is done, other environmental effects and aspects of the statements

relating to the economic and human effects of highway construction are

neglected. However, the review of the population of highway statements

to late 1972 which preceded the selection of the sample, indicates that

the quality of information and method of decision-making to be found in

them relating not only to their water-resource impacts but also to other

items of concern is not essentially different from what is revealed in

this analysis.

Summary Analysis of Statements

Following is a summary of the quality of the information given

in the environmental statements based upon the detailed analyses. In the

statements, generally only the most apparent effects of the highway projects

have been identified, let alone measured or predicted on some quantitative

or qualitative basis. The magnitude and duration of general effects which

are identified are seldom included, and those impacts which are recognized

are frequently intermixed with qualifications, value judgments--it may be

that NEPA and CEQ guidelines invite these--and reassurances about the modera-

tion of the effects. It should be noted that the CEQ guidelines for environ-

mental statements require: "A description of the proposed action including

information and technical data adequate to permit a careful assessment of

environmental impact by commenting agencies (Section 6 (a) item i)." The

108

absence of hard data on expected effects of highway projects would seem

to be a contravention of this. Impacts on life forms and the environment

which may be considered to be second level effects--as with the influence

of siltation on stream flow characteristics or aquatic organisms--are only

rarely identified and when they are it is usually as a result of some other

agency's inputs to the statement. Given the general low quality of the

statements, there is still considerable difference and room for inconsistency

among them.. Much of what is contained in the statements consists of generali-

ty, assertion, and unsupported value judgment with respect to water resources,

beyond the identification of impacts and the assurance that 11measures" will

be taken. By 1973, observations on the actual effectiveness of the "measuresil

such as silt basins were just beginning to be taken, although there was still

no hard information on how much silt escaped into the watercourses. Several

of the sample statements consistently claimed that the use of land for high-

ways was not an irreversible commitment, and that at some future point this

land might be returned to its original state. Others suggested that, while

the commitment of resources was not irreversible, such a turnabout was ac-

knowledged to be impractical. Similarly, the secondary economic growth and

development effects and land use changes which frequently accompany high-

way development, and may indeed be the most important effects, were constant-

ly cited as a positive factor in favor of the highway project while not

once were any negative aspects of.this growth--such as environmental effects--

cited in the sample. Also, only one statement, i.e., that for 1-40 in the

Raleigh area, included any actual analysis or prediction of noise or air

pollution effects, although an examination of others indicated a beginning

of additional analysis in some of the statements, prepared in late 1972.

109

These characteristics of the statements probably reflect attitudes

within the state and federal highway organizations. For instance, the

Federal Highway Administration's Policy and Procedure Memorandum 90-1

issued in September 1972 (and superseding an earlier version) states:

"Highways require use of natural resources such as forest or agricultural

land; however, these are generally not in sufficient quantity to be

nificant." In addition, this document distinguishes a separate category

for "highway sections where organized opposition has occured or is antici-

pated to occur" and the inter-state highway near Raleigh was certainly

typified by this characteristic.

Questions of how the statements--and those deciding the fate of the

projects--take into account the environmental effects of the projects -'

arise. What weight is given to these effects--temporary and permanent--

in the decision for a particular project or among alternatives? How are

environmental effects to be valued against or in comparison with other

values, such as the displacement of people, or the resources necessary

for construction? To what degree have they affected the highway planning

process?

It is difficult to understand how water-resource related impacts of

the project, and other derivative effects on the environment, could be

weighed against other values in decision-making, by any method whatsoever,

when they have not even been adequately identified--neglecting both measure-

ment and prediction for the moment--in the statements, either before or
after "special care" or (1precautionary measures" have been instituted.

Similarly, it is difficult to understand how alternative route locations

and highway designs could,be compared and evaluated without the'se data.

110

One of the prime problems is that the information, investigation and anal-

,ysis needed to enable adequate decision-making is just not generated or

completed.

This must be viewed in light of the requirement of Section 102(2)(B)

of NEPA for the identification and development of "methods and procedures,

in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality..., which will

insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may

be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic

and technical considerations." This section would seem to imply the de-

velopment of new planning and decision techniques, whether by the Federal

Highway Administration or the State highway agency. Yet these are not in

evidence in the statements examined, although they are apparently included

within the scope of the North Carolina Action Plan completed in 1973 by

the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety in

response to Federal Highway Administration requirements.

Excerpts from Statements

It is suggested here, drawing on the evidence of the statements

examined, that the method of decision-making used is primarily one of a

partial listing of benefits and adverse effects, then a combination of

assumption, judgment and assertion. The following excerpts from the

sections on "the relationship between local short term uses of man's en-

vironment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity"

of the various statements illustrate this. Other than descriptions of

positive and negative effects on water resources, these extracts are

essentially all that the statements in the sample contain relating to

the manner in which the effects were weighed and a decision arrived at.

That this "judgment" was the essence of the valuation process was confirmed

in an interview.

The benefits to be derived from the long-term effects of the
project outweigh all of these adverse short term effects.
The improved highway will provide a major benefit to the
community... file 3-72

The adverse effects associated with the project are minor
and more than offset by the long term gains received from
the project by resident of the community and the state.
file 6-72

Since adverse effects are minor and of short duration compared
to the immediate and long-term benefits derived by the communi-
ty and area there appears to be no significant conflict between
the local short-term and long-term productivity of man's en-
vironment. file 28-72

Since adverse effects are minor and of short duration compared
to the immediate and long-term benefits derived by the communi-
ty and region, there appears to be no significant conflict
between the local short-term and long-term productivity of
mants environment...Again, it is believed that these losses
suffered will be more than compensated for by the long-term
economic utility of this project. file 29-72

Most assuredly, will be the long-term positive impact of the
improved transportation facility. The economic potential
associated with the highway improvement is considered adequate
justification for committing the necessary resources and the
initial short-term adverse effects caused by the project.
file 34-72

The proposed project can certainly be classified as a long-
term productive facility... The benefits, such as reduced
operating costs, savings in travel time, reduced accident
costs, and the previously cited general economic enhance-
ment of the area and the region, offered by the long-term
productivity of this project ior all eastern North Carolina
as well as the Dover and Cove City areas will more than
offset the short-term inconveniences and adverse effects
on manis environment. The goal of highway planning is to
create facilities that fulfill the need for traffic service,
are compatible with today's land uses, and enhance future
possible land use and development. Safer, more efficient
highway facilities have been proved to have positive and
desirable effects on man's environment... file 44-72

112

It is therefore concluded that the long-term benefits which
will be received from this project are sufficient to justify
the minor adverse effects which it will have on the environ-
ment and the expenditure of resources which will be needed
for its construction. file 45-72

The adverse effects will be limited and temporary since the
proposed project is an improvement of the existing highway.
The short term effects are considered to be acceptable in
exchange for the long-term benefits of the project. file 71-72

In contrast, the benefits of the proposed project will more
than offset these adverse effects. The project will provide
a safer and more efficient transportation facility in this
relatively inaccessible mountain area. The economic activi-
ty of the area will be stimulated and the overall productivity
of the surrounding area enhanced for future generations as a
result of. . . file 76-72

The proposed project can certainly be classified as a long-
term productive facility-The benefits such as ... offered
by the long-term productivity of this project for all eastern
North Carolina as well as the Raleigh and Smithfield areas
will more than offset the short-term inconveniences and
adverse effects on man's environment. file 97-72

In summary, the recommended proposal will serve both the
present and future transportation needs of this area. The
proposed improvement and widening of US 441 is compatible
with today's land use and offers the potential for additional
de velopment in Jackson and Swain Counties of western North
Carolina. The gains received by the residents of the
community, region and state will more than offset the minor
adverse. effects of short duration... file 100-72

Admittedly there remain considerable difficulties in any valuation of

positive and negative effects by whatever technique. However the statements

give no real indication of any attempt to do so, and no real insight into

the manner in which decisions were made.

Inter-agency Coordination

Contact between the highway agency and other governmental agencies

prior to the submission of draft statements was evident in a number of

statements examined here. This would seem to indicate that the required

113

four statements, and the subsequent Federal Highway Administration require-

ment of "coordination" early in the location study phase of decision-making

have been successful in stimulating intergovernmental agency communication

and inputs. Indeed, an interview revealed that in North Carolina this co-

ordination and contact with other state agencies from the start of the

highway planning study provided a major part of the interdisciplinary in-

put, especially the Department of Natural and Economic Resources in the

case of water impacts. Typically some alternatives generated from an

engineering perspective are sent for comment to state agencies. The extent

of this inter-agency communication and the weight given by the highway

agency to inputs of other agencies are difficult to ascertain simply from

the statements. Without a detailed review of each project it is not

possible to know what options or choices have been closed out. Some in-

fluence should certainly be expected.

For instance in the case of the New Bern Bypass of US 70 involving the

removal of hydraulic fill from the Neuse River-, the Wildlife Resources

Commission of the Department of Natural and Economic Resources had "advised

that in their opinion dredging will be a destructive process for aquatic

ecological systems" creating turbidities which would "disrupt any stream

habitat." Considerable attention was paid by the highway agency to this

expected effect and preventive measures were detailed in the environmental

statement. However, an alternative source for fill was not definitely

found. Neither were there generated explicit estimates of the actual

physical or chemical impact of this procedure on the water quality and

life forms.

114

The responses of other government agencies to the draft statements,

in most cases examined here, varied from an inadequate form letter to a

detailed critique. However, frequently where other impacts could and

should have been identified in the statement, there was no mention or

criticism of this by the other agencies.

Summary Comments

A trend noted in the survey of the population of highway project state-

ments was the increasing frequency of use of the negative declaration for

projects. This is apparently encouraged by the Federal High-,,7ay Administra-

tion throughout the United States due to the large number of projects for

which statements must be prepared. Negative declarations are typically used

where the project consists of improvements which are judged as "not likely

to have significant impacts upon the environment" such as signing, marking,

or signalization, resurfacing, less than lane width widening, adding shoulders

or auxiliary lanes, correcting substandard curves, reconstruction of exist-

ing stream crossings not affecting the stream channel, and of highway and

railway crossings and intersections, reconstruction of existing roadbed,

and "rural two-lane highways on new or existing location which are found

to be generally environmentally acceptable to the public and loc al, State,

and Federal officials."

From the evidence of the foregoing examination of environmental state-

ments, it appears that there are actually two stages at which the environ-

mental effects of a highway project are determined by the decisions which

are made, and at which an "environmental evaluation" should take place.

These stages are those of the selection of the route location and project

115

design and construction. At the first, the location of the route determines

what natural environmental features and land use configurations will be

intercepted and affected by the highway project, and to some extent what

project components will be required to complete the route. It is at this

stage that macro or regional planning considerations enter the decision-

making process, and it is determined whether a lake or marsh will be bi-

sected rather than an urban community for example and whether some environ-

mental effects--such as first level impacts on water resources--will occur.

The environmental statements in North Carolina appear to have opened

this stage of the highway planning process to public purview, at least to

some extent, although this depends upon the quality of the information con-

tained in the statements themselves. Admittedly, as is evident from the

previous examination, the quality of the highway environmental statements in

North Carolina is somewhat limited. To the extent that this is the case,

the public and other governmental agencies are closed out of the process

even though the State highway agency is required by the Federal Highway

Administration to engage in "coordination" with other government agencies

prior to the circulation of the draft statement during the highway location

study. However, it is evident that much of the information which it would

be desirable to include in the statement concerning environmental impacts

and the measures to be taken to modify or alleviate this impact (and thus

the impact after preventive actione are implemented) is not generated until

the second of the stages noted above.

It is at the project design and construction stage that many of the

specific environmental impacts--given a particular route location--will

be determined by the characteristics of individual project components, the

116

manner in which they are designed, the construction techniques to be used

and the specific on-site preventive measures to be employed. It is in

choosing these that the impact of the project component is determined.

And it is at this stage that much more detailed information about the

environmental effects should be generated. This will not only facilitate

the choices involved at this stage but also have potential as a feedback

to the route location decision. Thus, if at some point of investigation

at the second stage it becomes evident that the impacts are more significant

than originally supposed, the route location can be re-evaluated with proper

weight given to the new information.

Clearly, the statements that were examined indicate that these choices

at the project design and construction stage concerning project component

characteristics and the preventive measures to be implemented are occurring

now, as demonstrated by the State highway agency's "Standard Special

Provisions" for "protection of the environment," frequently through agree-

ment between highway agency and contractor. Yet the manner in which these

statements are written and the timing of their writing and circulation

with respect to the entire highway planning process effectively close out

this second stage of the process to public and other government agency

examination. Indeed the information which might and should be generated

does not seem to be generated. The only current way for the public actually

to determine what "special attentionsit and "preventive measures" have been

implemented, and the extent to which erosion and stream siltation have been

11minimized" is an on-site inspection.

What seems to be required is a two (or more) stage decision process

wherein, at the first, alternative route locations with regional planning

117

and macro-environmental considerations, are examined and only tentative

approval of route location is given to the highway agency. The public

and other agencies would be provided an opportunity to obtain more informa-

tion about alternative locations and specific project components so that

environmental impacts--and others also for that matter--may be evaluated

and weighed in some systematic procedure. At the'second stage the high-

way agency'would, assuming a tentative approval had been given, provide

this information--whether or not requested--and a more detailed evaluation

and weighing would be made for the components. A return to the route

location stage might be necessary in some cases as alternative designs

and preventive measures were assessed. It is possible that these improve-

ments in procedure can be made as a part of implementing the North Carolina

Highway Action Plan.

118

APPENDIX C

Chronology of Actions on Selected Water Resource Projects

I. New Hope Lake (B. Everett Jordan Lake)

1963

December 30 New Hope Lake project authorized by Congress for con-
struction (Public Law 88-253)

1970

January I National Environmental Policy Act enacted.

December 7 Ground breaking for start of construction for the
project.

December 14 Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
announces that an environmental statement will be
prepared for the project and sends 10-page state-
ment of environmental aspects of the project to the
Durham ECOS with request for views and comments.

1971

March 9 North Carolinians including State Representative
James Holshouser, State Senator Hamilton Horton and
environmentalists James Wallace, Ernest Carl and
Edward Wiser in meeting with the Council on Environ-
mental Quality present critical analysis of the
project.

March 30 District Engineer sends 12-page draft environmental
statement to Federal and State agencies, Research
Triangle Planning Commission and Durham ECOS with
request for comments "at your earliest convenience."

April 21 District Engineer sends revised 15-page draft environ-
mental statement incorporating additional environmental
information to the same agencies for comments.

This chronology is based on James C. Wallace, The National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969: An Analysis of Its Impact on the New Hope Dam
Project, Master of Science report, U.N.C. Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering, 1974.

119

1971

May 11 Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality writes
to Representative Holshouser reporting that the Corps
of Engineers would continue railway and highway re-
location work at the New Hope site but would let no
new contracts pending completion of the final environ-
mental statement.

August 10 Conservation Council of North Carolina, ECOS, Inc., and
affected citizens file a motion for injunctive and de-
claratory relief against construction of the project,
in U.S. Middle District Court of North Carolina.

October 22 Corps of Engineers files its three-volume, 704-page
final environmental statement on the project with
the Council of Economic Advisers.

October 28 Corps of Engineers answers the compalint and files a
copy with the Court.

1972

January 25 Conservation Council of North Carolina files a 11-page
critical analysis of the Corps' final statement with
the Council on Environmental Quality.

February 14 District Court Judge Gordon, in denying the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction,.finds that, al-
though the Plaintiffs have presented strong evidence
which casts doubt on the advisability of continuing
with the New Hope project, they have not shown that
defendants failed to comply with the requirements set
out in NEPA.

March 3 Plaintiffs file motion of appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals, Fourth District.

May 2 U.S. Court of Appeals affirms Judge Gordon's denial
of the preliminary injunction.

August 2 Plaintiffs and Defendants file motions with Judge
Gordon for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' motion
for a permanent injunction.

August 30 Judge Gordon denies Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, in effect denying the permanent injunction.

September 11 Plaintiffs appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth
District.

120

1973

February 8 U.S. Court of Appeals remands case to the District
Court with directions to review the substantive
findings of the Corps of Engineers on the project
and to issue a preliminary injunction against
further work on the project.

February 11 Judge Gordon issues a preliminary injunction which
halts all further work, with minor exceptions.

1974

February 5 Judge Gordon approves a Consent Judgment allowing
the Corps of Engineers to complete the dam and pro-
viding that data relating to water quality and reser-
voir operation is to be collected to March 1, 1975,
following which a draft supplemental environmental
statement is to be prepared and circulated, with the
final supplemental statement expected to be filed
with the Council on Environmental Quality by January
1, 1976. The Court retains jurisdiction over de-
cision whether to allow operation of the dam to
create and maintain a long-term storage lake.

II. Falls Lake

1965

October 27 Falls Lake project authorized by Congress for con-
struction (Public Law 89-298).

1970

January 1 National Environmental Policy Act enacted.

1971

February 10 Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
completes environmental statement for the project.
Statement consists of seven pages.

1This chronology is based in part on a working paper prepared by
Peter Petrall in May, 1973.

121

1971

April 15 Corps of Engineers files final environmental state-
ment with CEQ. Statement consists of seven pages
plus five exhibits of commentaries from Federal and
State agencies.

July 19 North Carolina State Legislature authorizes State
financial participation in recreational features of
the project.

1972

March 6 Corps of Engineers testifies before the U.S. House
and Senate Appropriations Committees in favor of an
appropriation request of $4.3 million for fiscal
year 1973 to begin work on the project. No mention
is made in the justification statement of the environ-
mental effects of the project.

April 15 Joseph LeConte Chapter of Sierra Club writes the Dis-
trict Engineer, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
expressing concern for environmental consequences of
the project and the inadequacy of the environmental
statement and requesting an updating of the statement
before construction is begun on the project.

May 26 A follow-up letter is sent to the District Engineer by
the Joseph LeConte and Research TriAngle Chapters of
the Sierra Club, ECOS, Inc., and Wake Environment,
restating specific items to be reconsidered in updating
the environmental statement.

September 11 Corps of Engineers announces signing of cost-sharing
agreement between the State of North Carolina and the
Corps for the project. Congressional appropriations
of $3.3 million for fiscal year 1972 and $4.3 million
for fiscal year 1973 are reported available to enable
work to begin on the project within six months.

October 12 Committees on Public Works, U.S. House and Senate,
request the Corps of Engineers to review previous
reports on the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins with
the view to providing a plan of development to meet
the water and related land-resource needs of the
Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill urban area. The
Corps interprets this review request as not intending
a reevaluation of the Falls Lake or New Hope Lake
projects.

122

December 29 Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers issues 27-
page information brochure on the project, covering
major project features and purposes, project status
with respect to readiness for construction, reevalu-
ation, and environmental statement. The Corps re-
ports that the environmental statement is being
updated, and that a draft updated statement would
be completed by August 1973.

1973

March 8 The Neuse Valley Association (an association of land-
owners in the project area) files in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina a
complaint and motion for temporary restraining order
and preliminary and permanent injunction to halt
acquisition of land prior to start of construction
on the project. The Plaintiffs assert that the 1971
environmental statement for the project is inadequate,
and that the procedural requirements of NEPA have
not been met.

March 20 Senator Jesse Helms announces that he will not support
construction of the project as planned.

April 16 Judge Franklin T. Dupree, Jr. holds hearing on Plain-
tiff's motion for preliminary injunction and Defen-
dant's motion to maintain the environmental status
quo of the land use within the project area by Plain-
tiffs.

April 23 District Engineer, Wilmington District, Corps of
Engineers distributes to all libraries in Wake,
Durham and Granville Counties copies of water quali-
ty and botanical studies of the project by University
of North Carolina scientists at Chapel Hill, and
reports that these studies will be included in the
updated environmental statement.

June 22 Judge Dupree signs Order denying Plaintiff's motion
for preliminary injunction and Defendant's motion
without prejudice, and providing for a hearing on
the merits approximately two weeks after the revised
environmental statement is filed with the CEQ.

August 27 Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers distributes
its draft revised environmental statement on Falls
Lake to 87 Federal, State and local governmental
agencies, special interest groups and county libraries.

123

1973

August 27 The statement with its appendices comes in five volumes,
with more than 2,000 pages, and represents a revision
of the 1971 statement covering environmental changes
to be caused by the project covering flora, fauna,
fish and fowl. Comments are requested within 45 days.
The Corps also announces availability of the state-
ment in a letter sent to many residents of the Greater
Raleigh-Durham area.

1974

May 1 Corps of Engineers files final revised environmental
statement with the CEQ. The District Engineer con-
cludes that "the proposed Falls Lake project employs
all practicable means, consistent with other essen-
tial considerations of national policy, to meet the
goals established in the National Environmental Policy
Act..."

1
III. Chicod Creek

1966

August 22 Chicod Creek watershed project authorized by Congressional
Agriculture Committees for operations under provisions of
Public Law 566, 83d Congress.

1970

January 1 National Environmental Policy Act enacted.

1971

February 4 Soil Conservation Service issues Watersheds Memorandum
108 directing review and classification of all stream
channelization projects in terms of environmental impact.

May Pitt County Drainage District No. Nine contracts to
become local sponsor for the project, thus clearing
the way for work to begin.

August 5 Soil Conservation Service and Pitt County Drainage Dis-
trict No. Nine sign a supplemental work plan agreement
embodying modifications in the project to mitigate
some adverse fishery and wildlife effects of the project.

This chronology is based in part on a working paper prepared by Paul
Fisher in May, 1973.

124

1971

September 10 Acting Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service writes to State Conservationist, Soil
Conservation Service, asserting that the proposed
mitigation measures will not significantly lessen
the adverse effects of the project on the ecosystem
of the watershed and requesting that the project be
placed in Group 3 (serious adverse effects) as de-
fined in Watersheds Memorandum 108 until the pro-
posed stream channelization is eliminated in Chicod
Creek.

September- Soil Conservation Service concludes that, as modified,
October the project is classified in Group I (no significant
adverse effects) as defined in Watersheds Memorandum
108, and that no environmental statement is required
before construction is started.

November 30 The Natural Resources Defense Council, North Carolina
Wildlife Federation, Pamlico-Tar Conservation Coalition,
National Wild4fe Federation and Friends of the Earth
file a motion in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina for a preliminary
injunction against start of construction on the project,
partly on the basis that Defendants propose to start
construction without preparing and circulating an
environmental statement as required by Section 102 of
NEPA.

December 21 State Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service
writes to Assistant Secretary for Resource Management,
Department of Natural and Economic Resources reporting
that, after an intensive review of all watershed pro-
jects that were approved for operations before passage
of NEPA, in accordance with instructions in Watersheds
Memorandum 108, the Service has determined that the
Chicod Creek project as modified "does not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment" and
therefore that an environmental statement is not re-
quired.

December 30 Assistant Secretary, Department of Natural and Economic
Resources, in replying to the State Conservationist, ex-
presses disagreement with the finding of the Service
that the modified project will not have significant
environmental effects, and points to the Fish and Wild-
life Service letter of September 10, as support for
his view that the project should be classed at least
in Group 2 (requiring further studies of environmental
effects) as defined in Watersheds Memorandum 108.

125

1972

March 16 Judge Larkins of U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina rules that the Chicod
Creek project is a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment and that
an environmental statement must be prepared prior to
proceeding with construction, and issues a prelimi-
nary injunction against construction pending compli-
ance with provisions of NEPA. Defendants are given
30 days in which to prepare and file an environmental
statement. .

April 14 Soil Conservation Service files 45-page draft environ-
mental statement with CEQ and circulates it to Federal
and State agencies and the general public; the state-
ment covers the five points of information listed in
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

May 18 Natural Resources Defense Council and other Plaintiff
environmental organizations file a detailed 61-page
commentary on the draft statement, taking exception
to many of the findings in the draft statement and
providing supplemental information and opinion.

May ECOS, the Joseph LeConte Chapter of the Sierra Club,
the Pamlico-Tar Conservation Council and the Environ-
mental Policy Center of Washington, D.C. file critical
comments on the draft statement.

July 13 The Soil Conservation Service files the final environ-
mental statem6nt with CEQ. The statement includes
copies of all comments from Federal and State agencies,
environmental groups and others, and contains a point-
by-point response to each specific comment. No sub-
stantive changes in the project work plan appear to
be proposed by the Service as a result of comments
received.

1973

February 3 Judge Larkins -finds the final environmental statement
filed by the Soil Conservation Service to be inadequate
to meet the NEPA requirements of full disclosure of
impacts and alternatives and full consideration of
them in agency decision-making. Judge Larkins lists
eight categories of inadequacy in the environmental
statement. He issues a preliminary injunction barring
further action on the project pending a full hearing
on the merits of the case.

126

1974

May 16 North Carolina Clearinghouse and Information Center
receives draft revised environmental statement pre-
pared by the Soil Conservation Service for the pro-
ject. The statement with five appendices consists
of four volumes with a total of 527 pages.

127

DEC 1194 COASTAL ZONE
INKPIA710W CENTER

DATE DUE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTEDINU.S.A.

3 6668 14106 1814