[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48691-48693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24409]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program
AGENCY: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a programmatic environmental
impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) announces its intention to prepare a
programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS), pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) for the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program. The draft
PEIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of alternatives
for administration of the EWP program. This program which provides
funding and assistance to localities requesting EWP assistance to
address watershed impairments, caused by a natural disaster, which pose
an immediate threat to life and property.
A PEIS for the current EWP program was prepared in 1975. NRCS is
now conducting a comprehensive review of the program which may result
in substantive changes to improve the environmental, economic and
technical soundness of activities conducted under the program. This
draft PEIS will support management decisions on how best to revise the
EWP program to
[[Page 48692]]
continue to effectively and efficiently meet EWP statutory
requirements. NRCS and its cooperating agencies will analyze a range of
reasonable alternatives to ensure compliance with all applicable laws
and regulations while minimizing, to the greatest extent practicable,
any potential adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts. The draft
PEIS also provides the public a substantive opportunity to voice their
concerns and ideas for improving the program. This notice informs the
public of the proposal, and announces the dates, times, and places for
public scoping meetings. It also, solicits public comment, and
describes in general the preliminary draft PEIS proposed action and
alternatives.
SCOPING MEETINGS: Six public scoping meetings will be held to provide
information on the EWP program and to discuss the issues and
alternatives relating to the program. Written and oral comments will be
received. The meetings will be held on the following dates and
locations:
September 29, 1998
Kansas City, Missouri--Holiday Inn-Airport, 11832 Plaza Circle,
Kansas City, MO 64153, (816) 464-2345
October 6, 1998
College Park, GA--Georgia Int'l Convention Center, 1902 Sullivan
Road, College Park, GA 30337, (770) 907-3074
October 8, 1998
Sacramento, California--The Hawthorne Suites Hotel, 321 Bercut
Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 441-1444
October 20, 1998
Bloomington, Minneapolis--Doubletree Guest Suites-Airport, 2800 W
80th Street, Bloomington, MN 55431-1205, (612) 884-4811
October 22, 1998
Albany, New York--Howard Johnson-Albany Center, 1375 Washington
Avenue, Albany, NY 12206-1009, (518) 459-3100
October 26, 1998
Washington, D.C.--USDA, Jefferson Auditorium, 14th & Independence
Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20013
Each scoping meeting will be conducted in two sessions--the first
in the afternoon from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and the second in the
evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (except Washington, D.C., where
only an afternoon session will be held).
COMMENTS INVITED: To ensure that the full range of issues and
alternatives related to the EWP program are addressed, NRCS invites
comments on the scope of this proposed draft PEIS. Written comments
should be postmarked by close of business on October 30, 1998, to
ensure consideration. Comments postmarked after this date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
WHERE TO COMMENT: Written comments on the scope of the draft PEIS and
requests for copies of the draft PEIS information packages should be
directed to: EWP--PEIS, Post Office Box 745, Falls Church, Virginia
22040-0745, telephone (toll free) 1-877-534-8692, or e-mail at
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For matters relating to the EWP
Program, please contact Warren M. Lee, Director, Watersheds and
Wetlands Division, USDA-NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, D.C.
20013-2890; telephone: (202) 720-3527.
For matters relating to USDA/ NRCS compliance with NEPA please
contact: Andree DuVarney, National Environmental Specialist, Ecological
Sciences Division, USDA-NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, D.C.
20013-2890; telephone: (202) 720-4925.
Information may also be obtained from the NRCS Worldwide website
at: http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/BCS/enviro/nepa.htm (general NEPA
compliance information) http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/programs.html (EWP
program).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EWP program funds and provides technical
assistance to sponsoring organizations (entities of government) to
implement emergency measures for runoff retardation and soil erosion
prevention to assist in relieving imminent hazards to life and property
from floods, drought, and the products of erosion created by natural
disasters that have caused or are causing sudden impairment of a
watershed. The program is authorized by Section 216 of the Flood
Control Act of May 17, 1950 (P.L. 81-516; 33 U.S.C. 701b-1) and by
Section 403 of Title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, (Pub.
L. 95-334), as amended by Section 382 of the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-127) 16 U.S.C. 2204.
NRCS regulations implementing the EWP program are set forth in 7 CFR
624.
NEPA only requires an PEIS be prepared for major Federal actions
significantly affecting the environment. It is NRCS's preliminary
opinion that the programmatic decisions being made about the EWP
program do not constitute such action, particularly when considered on
a nation-wide basis. Nonetheless, NRCS considers NEPA and the PEIS
process to be a useful tool to assist decision makers under certain
circumstances. Therefore, the agency has made the decision to prepare a
PEIS in this case to take full advantage of NEPA's public participation
provisions as a means of considering the concerns of individual members
of the public and the state and local government sponsors who play a
critical role in EWP and to fully consider the impacts of alternative
EWP program policies and activities.
The final PEIS on the EWP program will supersede the PEIS prepared
on the program in 1975. The purpose of the draft PEIS is to assess the
impacts of a range of EWP programmatic alternatives. It will also
factor in changes that are being proposed to the administrative rule
such as the use of floodplain easements to address recurring hazards.
NRCS expects that states may desire to tier to the national
programmatic NEPA analysis to facilitate rapid response to EWP program
emergency requirements in the future while maintaining adequate
environmental review coverage for the necessary decision making.
The draft PEIS will begin to define the criteria to be used to
approve projects for EWP funding. The Record of Decision resulting from
the final PEIS would serve as guidance to NRCS state offices. The draft
PEIS will likely use scenarios to evaluate the environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of EWP measures in relation to their
effectiveness in removing the immediate threat to loss of life and
property. Tiering to the PEIS would allow NRCS decision makers to move
forward quickly with project review.
At the same time that NRCS is preparing the draft PEIS, it is also
revising the administrative rule for the EWP program (7 CFR 624), as
well as revising the National EWP Manual, and the National EWP
Handbook.
Background
The EWP program was created by Congress to respond to emergencies
resulting from natural disasters. USDA, NRCS administers the EWP
program, providing technical and financial assistance for runoff
retardation and soil erosion control to relieve imminent hazards to
life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other
natural occurrences. Individuals are not eligible for EWP assistance
unless represented by a project sponsor--a State government or a
political subdivision of a State, such as a city, county, tribal
organization, general improvement district, or a conservation district.
All EWP work is designed exclusively to reduce threats to life and
property
[[Page 48693]]
while being economically, environmentally, and socially defensible and
technically sound. EWP work can include removing debris from stream
channels, road culverts, and bridges; reshaping and protecting eroded
banks; correcting damaged drainage facilities; repairing levees and
flood control structures; reseeding damaged areas; and purchasing
floodplain easements. EWP work is not limited to any one set of
prescribed measures. A case by case investigation of the needed work is
made by NRCS. Under current provisions, the work can be done either
through Federal or local contracts. NRCS may bear up to 75 percent of
the construction cost of the emergency measures. The remaining 25
percent must come from local sponsors and can be in the form of cash or
in-kind services. Sponsors are responsible for providing landrights to
do repair work, for securing the necessary permits, for furnishing the
local cost share, and for operation and maintenance of the work
installed.
Because the statutory authorities allow funding only for activities
required to relieve imminent hazards to life and property caused by
natural disasters, EWP funds cannot be used to install measures not
essential to the reduction of hazards or to solve problems that existed
before the disaster. EWP funds cannot be used to improve the level of
protection above that which existed prior to the disaster, unless
required by current technical standards. In addition, EWP cannot fund
operation and maintenance work, repair private or public transportation
facilities or utilities. EWP work also cannot affect downstream water
rights. Work will not be performed on measures installed by another
Federal agency, though EWP funds may be used to perform work on
measures installed by a state or local agency.
Description of Preliminary PEIS Alternatives
NRCS has developed a ``Proposed Action'' alternative and the ``No
Action'' alternative for the draft PEIS to initiate the NEPA process.
The proposed action is not necessarily the final alternative, but it
may be amended, refined, or supplemented, as appropriate, based on
input by the public and agencies during the public scoping process.
Additional alternatives also may emerge as well.
Proposed Action Alternative
The proposed action is for NRCS to continue administering the EWP
program but with substantial revision for improvement, by providing
funding and technical assistance to aid appropriately sponsored
entities in restoring watershed components to pre-disaster conditions.
Some of the changes NRCS is considering as part of the proposed
action, and on which comments are requested, include:
1. Use floodplain easements in lieu of recovery work.
2. Dedicate 15 percent of the monies appropriated by Congress for
floodplain easements.
3. Eliminate of the use of the terms ``Exigency'' and
``Nonexigency''.
4. Establish the cost-share rate at up to 75 percent for all but
limited resource sponsors who may receive up to 90 percent.
5. Stipulate that measures must be economically, socially, and
environmentally defensible to be installed and identify criteria to
meet those requirements.
6. Stipulate that urgent and compelling situations should be
handled immediately after discovery.
7. Allow organizations certified by the Internal Revenue Service as
501c organizations to become sponsors of floodplain easements.
8. Use of Disaster Assistance Recovery Teams to train NRCS
employees.
9. Evaluate ways to better coordinate EWP with other available
emergency programs.
No Action Alternative
This alternative would continue NRCS administration of the EWP
program as it is now carried out. Under this alternative, NRCS will not
make any substantive changes in its role, the mechanisms for review of
projects before funding or follow-up after completion, and with no
changes in monitoring of exigency and non-exigency situations.
These alternatives are beginning points for discussion and, based
upon comments received, modifications may be made to them and others
may be added.
Signed in Washington, D.C., on September 3, 1998.
Lawrence E. Clark,
Deputy Chief for Programs.
[FR Doc. 98-24409 Filed 9-10-98; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P