[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 54 (Friday, March 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13015-13017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6200]



[[Page 13015]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Environmental Impact Statement on Watershed Planning and 
Implementation of Resource Protection Measures for the Rockhouse Creek 
Watershed, Leslie County, KY

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent (NOI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Kentucky State 
Office, announces its intention to prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to evaluate the impacts of resource protection measures 
that would be employed under a watershed plan to reduce risks to life 
and property caused by frequent flooding of the community located in 
the Rockhouse Creek Watershed, Leslie County, Kentucky. Under the 
agency's proposal, NRCS would provide financial and technical 
assistance to sponsoring local organizations, including the Leslie 
County Fiscal Court, the Leslie County Conservation District, and the 
City of Hyden, for construction of two flood-retarding structures 
(earthen dams) in the upper reaches of the watershed. Such measures are 
authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 
1954, Public Law 83-566 (Pub. L. 566). The Draft EIS will assess the 
potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of the NRCS proposed 
action, as well as a range of alternatives to dam construction as 
identified in the watershed planning/NEPA process, including other 
structural and non-structural measures that would address recurrent 
Rockhouse Creek flooding. The EIS analysis will incorporate mitigation 
measures NRCS would use to minimize to the greatest extent practicable 
any potential adverse environmental or socio-economic impacts. Because 
the proposed flood retarding structures would be located on Federal 
lands on the Daniel Boone National Forest, the Forest Service has 
agreed to be a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS.
    Public Participation: The NRCS invites full public participation to 
promote open communication and better decisionmaking. All persons and 
organizations that have an interest in the Rockhouse Creek flooding 
problems as they affect Leslie County and the environment are urged to 
participate in the NEPA environmental analysis process. Assistance will 
be provided as necessary to anyone having difficulty in determining how 
to participate.
    Public comments are welcomed throughout the NEPA process. 
Opportunities for public participation include: (1) During the EIS 
scoping period when comments on the NRCS proposal will be solicited 
through various media and at a public meeting to be held in Hyden, KY; 
(2) during the 45-day review and comment period for the published Draft 
EIS; and (3) for 30 days after publication of the Final EIS.
    Scoping Process: NRCS is soliciting comments from the public 
indicating what issues and impacts the public believes should be 
encompassed within the scope of the EIS analysis, voicing any concerns 
they might have about the NRCS proposal and alternatives, and 
submitting any ideas they might have for addressing risks to life and 
property in the Rockhouse Creek Watershed.
    Date Scoping Comments are Due: Comments may be submitted by regular 
mail, toll-free telephone line, facsimile, or e-mail until 6 p.m. 
e.s.t. on May 21, 2004. Written comments submitted by regular mail 
should be postmarked by May 21, 2004, to ensure full consideration. 
Comments submitted after this date will be considered to the extent 
practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments on what the public wishes to be analyzed or 
addressed within the Draft EIS should be mailed to: Rockhouse Creek 
EIS, c/o Leslie County Conservation District, P.O. Box 932, Hyden, KY 
41749.
    Comments also may be submitted by calling the toll free telephone 
number 1-866-760-1421, by sending a facsimile to 1-703-760-4899, or e-
mail to [email protected]. Respondents should provide mailing address 
information and indicate if you wish to be included on the EIS mailing 
list. All individuals on the mailing list will receive a copy of the 
Draft EIS.
    Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting will be held April 20, 
2004 to provide information and the opportunity to discuss the issues 
and alternatives that should be covered in the Draft EIS and to receive 
oral and written comments. The meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 8:30 
p.m. in the Tim Lee Carter Senior Center, Hyden, KY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Kuhn, Assistant State 
Conservationist--Natural Resources Planning, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 
210, Lexington, KY 40503-5479, (859) 224-7371.
    An information package providing additional details about the 
watershed and proposed project is available upon request. Requests 
should be directed to the same mailing address, telephone number, 
facsimile number, or e-mail address noted above under ADDRESSES. NRCS 
also plans to publish a newsletter to keep interested parties up to 
date on the project. Requests to be included on the newsletter mailing 
list should be made to the same addresses noted above.
    Responsible Officials: The State Conservationist, NRCS, Lexington, 
Kentucky is the responsible official for this proposed action. The 
Forest Supervisor for the Daniel Boone National Forest, located at 1700 
Bypass Road, Winchester, KY 40391, is the responsible official for the 
decision concerning issuance of a special use permit that would allow 
construction of the flood retarding structures on National Forest lands 
under the proposed action.
    Decisions to be Made: The responsible NRCS official will decide 
whether to approve the proposal, an alternative to the proposal, or no 
action. Contingent on the NRCS decision, the FS responsible official 
will make a decision as to whether to issue a Special Use Permit and 
will also determine whether the Daniel Boone National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan will need to be amended.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Rockhouse Creek is a tributary of the Kentucky River 
that flows approximately seven miles from its origins through the 
community of Hyden to its confluence with the Middle Fork of the 
Kentucky River. The Rockhouse Creek Watershed encompasses 9,450 acres 
of primarily steep, mountainous terrain with ``V'' shaped valleys and 
narrow ridge tops ranging from 856' above mean sea level at Hyden to 
1,772' at its headwaters.
    The major water resource problems in the Rockhouse Creek watershed 
are serious flooding and deposition of sediment. Moderate floodwater 
damage occurs every year in the watershed with more severe damage 
occurring every 5 to 10 years. A longtime resident has stated that 
there were major flood events on Rockhouse Creek in 1927, 1937, 1947, 
1957, 1963, 1977, 1984, and 1989. The most recent major flood events in 
June and October of 1989 each caused damages in excess of $450,000. 
Other concerns identified in planning were inadequate and vulnerable 
public water supply and lack of public water-based recreation.
    In 1993, sponsoring local organizations (SLO) that include the 
Leslie County Fiscal Court, Leslie

[[Page 13016]]

County Conservation District, and the City of Hyden requested 
assistance from NRCS and the USDA Forest Service (FS) in development of 
a Resource Protection Plan for the Rockhouse Creek Watershed, with 
major emphasis on providing flood protection for businesses, homes, and 
roads located along the floodplain. A preliminary ecosystem-based 
resource plan (preliminary watershed plan), developed in 1994, 
described existing floodwater damages, some additional water resource 
concerns, and alternatives for addressing these concerns. Among the 
options evaluated at the time were channel enlargement of Rockhouse 
Creek, flood proofing of affected structures, replacement of certain 
culverts, and removal of obstructions. The preliminary evaluation led 
to the conclusion that these measures were not fully adequate to 
address Rockhouse Creek flooding because the large volume of run-off 
generated from storm events would quickly overwhelm even the expanded 
channel capacity. Possible relocation of affected households was also 
considered but the preliminary evaluation found it not to be a viable 
option because of the resulting community disruption and expected high 
cost, and the difficulty involved in identifying suitable relocation 
sites.
    In 2000, NRCS representatives met with local sponsors and public 
officials to discuss conducting a more detailed flood protection 
analysis by evaluating the upper reaches of the watershed for the 
placement of floodwater retarding structures. A report was issued in 
2002 that evaluated six different locations for floodwater retarding 
structures (FRS) and one location for a multi-purpose structure (MPS) 
that would also meet the area's water supply and water-based recreation 
needs as well as floodwater control. The NRCS proposal in the EIS 
includes the two structures evaluated in the 2002 report that provided 
substantial flood protection and that also met applicable cost-benefit 
criteria.
    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Public 
Law 83-566, authorizes NRCS to provide financial and technical 
assistance to local sponsors to address local flooding problems and 
implement watershed protection measures. Under the agency proposal for 
Rockhouse Creek, NRCS would provide financial and technical assistance 
to the sponsors for the construction of two dams and the sponsors would 
be responsible for operation and maintenance. In the case of the MPS, 
the sponsors must pay fifty percent of the water supply costs under 
Public Law 83-566 authority (e.g. cost of a pipeline to connect the 
impoundment to existing Rockhouse community water supply lines) unless 
otherwise authorized by Congress.
    Need for the Proposal: The proposal is needed to address the 
problems associated with recurrent flooding due to periodic intense 
rainstorm events in the Rockhouse Creek Watershed, which continue to 
pose a hazard to human safety and to cause extensive flood damage to 
properties along the Creek.
    Purpose of the Proposal: The purpose of the proposal is to assist 
the local community in taking appropriate measures to assure public 
safety and protect property in the face of the recurrent flooding 
problems on Rockhouse Creek. Constructing the flood-retarding 
structures would impound and reduce peak floodwater flows associated 
with intense rainstorm events on Rockhouse Creek, thereby reducing 
flood levels and potential risk to life and property downstream. 
Secondarily, the impoundments could provide an opportunity for water-
based recreation, including fishing and swimming. The largest of the 
dams might also serve as a multi-purpose structure providing drinking 
water and water for fire protection, for the city of Hyden and the 
greater Rockhouse Creek community, although the SLO have indicated they 
have an alternative water source that is currently considered 
preferable to meet those purposes.
    Preliminary Issues: Among the issues that NRCS plans to consider in 
the scope of the EIS analysis are the:
     Impacts to the environmental resources of the 
public lands that would be flooded by the proposed dam impoundments, 
particularly impacts to any protected plant or animal species;
     Economic and social impacts of the proposed 
action and alternatives;
     Availability of borrow sites of suitable 
material large enough for constructing the dams and within close 
proximity to the dam sites;
     Environmental impacts of realigning roads, 
pipelines, or other infrastructure that would be required to allow for 
dam construction and floodwater impoundment;
     Geologic integrity of the proposed dam sites;
     Natural gas wells, coal mines, or other mineral 
resources that might be affected; and
     Costs and benefits of the proposed action and 
alternatives.
    Preliminary Alternatives: The Draft EIS will assess the potential 
environmental and socio-economic impacts of a range of alternatives, 
including structural and non-structural measures, for reducing risks to 
life and property presented by Rockhouse Creek flooding. The 
preliminary list of alternatives for the Draft EIS includes: (1) The 
Proposed Action--constructing two flood retarding structures--one a 
flood retarding dam, the other a multipurpose dam in the watershed; (2) 
building two flood retarding dams and one multipurpose dam in the 
watershed; (3) using other structural measures to deal with flooding 
and reduce damages; (4) using non-structural flood protection measures 
to reduce the potential for damage, including relocating households to 
remove them from flood-prone locations in the watershed; (5) employing 
a combination of structural and non-structural measures, and (6) taking 
No Action--making no improvements for flood protection. The 
alternatives will be refined and supplemented, as appropriate, based on 
input by the public and agencies during the public scoping process.
    Alternative 1--the Proposed Action: Construct Two Flood Retarding 
Structures. Under the Proposed Action, NRCS would provide financial and 
technical assistance to the SLO for construction of two earthen dams in 
the headwaters of Rockhouse Creek. One would be a flood retarding 
structure on the mainstem of the creek (FRS 3 from the 2002 
Study), the other a multipurpose structure on the Laurel Creek 
tributary (MPS 2 from the 2002 Study). The FRS would be 
located on the upper reach of the Rockhouse Creek main tributary 
approximately 7,000' upstream of its confluence with Puncheon Camp 
Branch. It would be 85' high, have a pool surface area of 6.4 acres, 
and store 291 acre-feet of water and 100 acre-feet of sediment from a 
drainage area of 1,200 acres. The MPS would be located on Laurel Creek 
approximately 5,000' upstream of its confluence with the left fork of 
Rockhouse Creek. It would be 98' high, have a pool surface area of 14.9 
acres, and store 350 acre-feet of water and 156 acre-feet of sediment 
from a drainage area of 1,880 acres. Both dams would be located on 
Forest Service lands. Installation of this alternative would provide a 
5-year level of flood protection to 43 percent of the properties 
subject to first floor flooding at that frequency and protect 23 
percent of the properties subject to flooding by a 100-year storm.
    Alternative 2--Construct Three Flood Retarding Structures. Under 
this alternative, NRCS would construct three dams, including the two 
dams identified under the proposed action and a third structure located 
on the Left Fork of Rockhouse Creek, approximately 1,000' upstream of 
its confluence with Laurel

[[Page 13017]]

Creek and listed as FRS 1 in the 2002 Report. It would be 78' 
high, have a pool surface of 2.4 acres, and store 95 acre-feet of water 
and 46 acre-feet of sediment from a drainage area of 550 acres. The 
third dam would be located on private lands, the rights to which the 
SLO would need to secure.
    Alternative 3--Employ Other Structural Measures. Under this 
alternative, NRCS would provide financial and technical assistance to 
the SLO for implementation of structural measures other than dams to 
address flooding problems. Such measures would include channel widening 
of Rockhouse Creek, replacement of certain culverts and bridges, and 
removal of obstructions to flow.
    Alternative 4--Employ Non-Structural Flood Protection Measures. 
Under Alternative 3, NRCS would provide financial and technical 
assistance to the SLO for implementation of non-structural measures 
only. Flood proofing would be implemented to protect structures in the 
floodplain, including installation of floodwalls, raising structures on 
pilings, or moving structures out of the highest risk locations. 
Households at high flood risk would be relocated out of the Rockhouse 
Creek watershed to another suitable location. Under this alternative 
NRCS would consider moving households to existing dwellings outside the 
watershed and demolishing the remaining structure after payment of fair 
market value or would consider relocation of the home structure itself 
to a new location.
    Alternative 5--Employ a Combination of Structural and Non-
Structural Flood Protection Measures. Under this alternative, NRCS 
would provide financial and technical assistance to the SLO for 
implementation of a combination of flood protection measures that would 
include the structural and non-structural measures determined to be 
most appropriate and cost-effective to protect property and reduce 
flood damages. Dams and other structural measures and the use of flood 
proofing measures and household relocation would be considered.
    Alternative 6--No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, NRCS 
would provide no financial or technical assistance to sponsoring local 
organizations for flood protection measures in the Rockhouse Creek 
watershed. Federal agencies are required to evaluate the impacts of a 
No Action alternative in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, 
even though the alternative would not meet the agency's purpose and 
need.
    Permits or Licenses Required: Construction of flood retarding 
structures is authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention Act of 1954, (Pub. L. 83-566) administered by NRCS. A 
special use permit would have to be issued by the Forest Service for 
construction of such structures and impoundment of water on National 
Forest lands. A permit would be required from the State of Kentucky, 
Division of Water for any dam structures.
    A permit would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404 for any project that would 
impede the flow of waters of the U.S. or that would affect any 
wetlands. The project would also require a water quality certification 
by the State under CWA, Section 401, which could be issued in 
conjunction with the CWA 404 permit. Approval from the State Historic 
Preservation Office would be required if any National Register-eligible 
historic properties would be affected. Consultation with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service would be required if the proposal may affect any 
species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act.
    Estimated Dates for Draft EIS and Final EIS: NRCS expects to file 
the Draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to 
have it available for public review and comment during the summer or 
fall of 2004. At that time, EPA will publish a Notice of Availability 
(NOA) of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The public comment 
period on the Draft EIS will be a minimum of 45-days from the date EPA 
publishes the NOA.
    NRCS and the Forest Service believe, at this early stage, it is 
important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to 
public participation in the environmental review process. First, 
reviewers of the Draft EIS must structure their participation in the 
environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and 
alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and concerns (Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)). Also, 
environmental objections that could be raised at the Draft EIS stage, 
but are not raised until after completion of the Final EIS, may be 
waived or dismissed by the courts (City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). Because of these court rulings, 
it is very important that those interested in this project participate 
by the close of the Draft EIS review period, so that substantive 
comments are made available to the NRCS and Forest Service at a time 
when the comments can be meaningfully considered in the Final EIS.
    To assist NRCS and the Forest Service in identifying and 
considering issues and concerns on the proposed action and 
alternatives, comments on the Draft EIS should be as specific as 
possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or 
chapters of the Draft EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of 
the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and 
discussed in the Draft EIS. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council 
on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 153.3 in 
addressing these points.
    After the comment period on the Draft EIS ends, the comments will 
be analyzed, considered, and responded to by NRCS and the Forest 
Service in preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled for 
completion by the end of 2004. The responsible officials will consider 
the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the 
Final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a 
decision regarding this proposed action. The responsible officials will 
document the decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of 
Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 
CFR Part 215.

    Dated: March 12, 2004.
David G. Sawyer,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
[FR Doc. 04-6200 Filed 3-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P