Images de page
[blocks in formation]

Fiscal Year 1989 Request
Federal Morr- Fed Total

Capabilities Submitted
Federal Norr Fed Total

Total Capabilities
Federal Norr Fed


[blocks in formation]















[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]



[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]





Regular Construction

Animas-la Plata
Central Valley Project
Auburn-Folsa South Unit
San Felipe Division
San Luis Unit, Arroyo Pasajero Activity
Colorado River Basin Sal inity Control Project,

Title I Division
Columbia Basin Project. Irrigation Facilities
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program
Belle Fourche Unit
Garrision Diversion Unit
North Lap Division
Recreational and Fish and Wildife Pacilities

Web Rural Water Development Project
Drainage and Minor Construction

Colorado River Front Work And Leve System

Leadville Mine Drainage Tumel
Applied Engineering

Grondwater Recharge Dernstration Progra







[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]


Question. After last year's budget disaster, I was encouraged to note your request of $26.8 million for Piscal Year 1989.

Notwithstanding budgetary limitations, what is your capability for FY89 for Garrison Diversion?

How much for MR&I, which is state administered?

Answer. Notwithstanding budgetary limitations, we have the additional capability for FY 1989 expenditures in the amount of $21.8 million, however this discretionary increase for a lower priority activity runs counter to the President's goal of reducing the large Federal deficit.


Additional Capability

State MR&I
Indian Irrigation Preconstruction
Indian MR&I
Total Additional Capability
President's FY 1989 Budget Request
Total Capability

$14,700,000 11



1! This figure was furnished by Governor Sinner at the Outside Witness Hearings on April 14, 1988.

Question. I recall when we were promised the start of actual irrigation by FY68. We are still waiting. Obviously, the promised fulfillment of your commitment has slipped many times under several Administrations. The people of North Dakota are wondering if you ever really plan to irrigate any substantial acreage in the State, or if it is realistic to expect any of the other promised benefits to materialize.

Based on current and past funding levels, how long before we get water on the land?

Answer. The Reformulation Act defers construction of most supply and irrigation facilities until completion of the James River Study and renegotiation of the master repayment contracts. Also, the Reformulation Act states that, "The Secretary is prohibited from obligating funds for construction of irrigation service facilities...prior to September 30, 1990. Given these constraints and also depending on the availability of funds, it would be about 1996 at the earliest before any substantial water deliveries for irrigation can be achieved, except for about 1,000 acres of the 5,000-acre Oakes Test Area which is scheduled for water service in June 1988.

Question. I note in your justifications you list $31,980,000 as the cost of the Sykeston Canal. Where did you get that number?

What are your estimates of the cost of each of the three routes presently being considered for this canal?

Do you have an estiute, or even a guesstimate, of the cost of routing this canal outside the Hudson's Bay drainage to the extent possible?

Do you think there is any realistic possibility that your preferred routing of the Sykeston Canal vill be accepted?

Where are you on the preliminary design of this canal?

As you know, there are very strong aisgivings as to the votkability of any Sykeston Canal, its costs and other factors. These questions vill have to be answered before we proceed to the next phase of the project.

When can you have at least reasonably authoritative preliminary data available? Can this be expedited? Would more money help? If so, how much?

Apsver. The figure $31,980,000 was developed from an estimate of $28 million that had been prepared under the direction of the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDD) Commission staff. It vas indexed to reflect increase in cost due to inflation. Also, the cost of cultural resource activities, which were not included in the orginal estimate, bave been added.

[ocr errors]

The "Draft Supplement to the Bavironmental Statenent, Comission Plan," DES 86-9, dated March 6, 1986, included discussion of three alternatives. Alternative 1 is the route presented in the GDU Conission Report. Alternative 12 is an alinement which generally follows the Comission recommendation but approximates property boundaries to lixit social impacts. Alternative 5 is an alinenent which is almost entirely vithin the previously acquired Lonetree Reservoir boundary. The cost estimates concerning these alinenents are:

[blocks in formation]

These estimates vill be adjusted when further analyses and estimates are completed. We anticipate tbåt such adjustrents will be significant.

A preliminary estimate was prepared in June 1987 for an alinement located outside of the Canadian drainage. The alinement considered a canal capacity of 1,000 cubic feet per second and a length of 48.5 miles. There also was a need for a pumping plant and 1.2 miles of discharge line. The total estimated cost was $106,000,000 at October 1986 price levels.

We expect to complete an analysis of the Sykeston Canal near the end of this calendar year. The study will deal with issues such as costs of construction and operation and maintenance; operating requirements; social, environmental and cultural impacts; biota transfer; and risk assessment. The results of that analysis should provide information from which the feasibility of the Sykeston Canal can be determined, and a decision be made on the selection of an alinement.

1/ These cost utintes exclude about $7 million in additional costs for à check structure and supervisory control syster which may be necessary to manage flous vithout in-line storage and to reduce the risks of biota transfers in the event of a partial failure of the canal.

We have extensive design information with respect to alinement 5. We have only appraisal-grade design information concerning the other alinements. We do not plan to progress further with design development until an alinement is selected.

As indicated by our response above, we expect to complete an analysis by the end of this calendar year which will provide such preliminary data. We do not believe this analysis can be accelerated.

Question. What is the status of the James River study mandated by the Reformulation Act? Everything is contingent upon the completion of that study; can it be expedited at all? Would more funds help? I would hope we could have it well before the deadline.

Ansver, Many of the individual studies required for completion of the James River comprehensive study are nearing completion and are in the : report preparation stage. A draft of the Comprehensive Report is

scheduled for December of this year and the Secretarial report is expected to be complete in July of 1989. We are proceeding as expeditiously as the science allows. We do not believe the study and report process can be accelerated; additional funding would not expedite the process.

The circulation for comments of a draft Comprehensive Report by December 1988 vill provide federal-State-private interests with extensive information concerning the findings of the studies.

Question. I au both puzzled and concerned about your request for Fish and Wildlife nitigation and enhancement funding and the report we directed you to file with your F789 budget.

Our report directed that you report on "funding required to bring mitigation to a level concurrent with project construction by the end of Fiscal Year 1989."

To me, at least, that language is quite clear. Yet, your report and budget request goes beyond that. You propose to develop concurrency to and beyond Fiscal Year 1992 when the development of irrigation areas is scheduled to begin. With all of the uncertainties between now and FY92 built into the Reformulation Act, don't you think you're jumping the gun a bit?

As I see it, at least three thresholds must be crossed between now and that magic date:

the James River study must be completed and must be favorable;

-- a master repayment contract must be renegotiated with the
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District; and

-- a means of getting water from the McClusky Canal to the New Rockford Canal must be found--either a workable Sykeston Canal or some alternative thereto.

To further complicate things, some of these issues will require further review by the appropriate legislative committees of Congress.

Forget Fiscal Years 1990, 1991, or 1992; what level of funding is necessary to comply with the mandate of the FY88 Continuing Resolution?

Answer The funding identified for years beyond fiscal year 1989 is consistent with the Reformulation Act which requires that mitigation proceed concurrent with project construction. When contracts for

construction of GDU supply and irrigation facilities are awarded, the impacts to wildlife occur almost immediately due to the requirement to install drains as well as the dewatering of facilities associated with the construction proce88. The development of restored wetlands requires the purchase of land, surveys, and the preparation of designs and management plans before physical development and construction of the vetland complex. This typically takes 3 to 4 years before mitigation credits can be achieved, therefore, to meet the requirement of the law, the purchase of mitigation lands must be initiated about 3 years prior to the occurence of project impacts. The outyear impacts are based on the funding levels in the fiscal year 1989 Budget.

If the vildlife impacts, due to construction activities scheduled for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992, were to be disregarded as indicated by the question, the funding requirement for vildlife activities in fiscal year 1989 would be reduced by $2 million, nitigation concurrent with project construction would not be achieved.

Question. One further question: io the table accompanying your report, you list substantial "indirect costs." Please specify what those "indirect costs" include. Also, what are misc. Support Activities?"

Answer. The indirect costs shown in the table total $850,000 and consist of the following components:

1. Salaries and benefits of project office personnel who are associated with Fish and Wildlife activities....


2. Environmental support associated with archeology. NEPA compliance, 404 permits, etc.....


3. Regional Office and Project Office administrative costs, including a share of space costs, utilities, supplies, vehicles,




Denver Office technical assistance.




Miscellaneous Support Activities total $460,000 and include the following:

[blocks in formation]

Question. How much are you proposing to carry forward MR&I on Standing Rock and Fort Berthold Reservations?

How much for the development of irrigation for these same reservations?

How will these funds be administered?

Answer. It is anticipated that all funds appropriated for Indian MR&I programs will be expended for that purpose in fiscal year 1988.

None of the funds will be used for the development of irrigation for the Standing Rock and Fort Berthold Reservations. We anticipate having a

« PrécédentContinuer »