Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the Emergency Watershed Protection Program

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
 [Federal Register: April 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 17053-17060]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04ap05-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service

Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement on the Emergency Watershed Protection Program

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: This notice presents the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) implementation of
revisions to the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program to allow
NRCS to more effectively and efficiently meet EWP statutory
requirements and improve the effectiveness of agency responses to
sudden watershed impairments caused by natural disasters. NRCS prepared
a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for EWP
Program changes and published the FPEIS on the NRCS Web site. A Notice
of Availability (NOA) of the EWP FPEIS was published in the Federal
Register on December 30, 2004 and all agencies and persons on the FPEIS
distribution list were notified individually as well. Printed and CD-
ROM versions of the FPEIS were made available and delivered to all
those who requested. This Decision Notice summarizes the environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the EWP Program alternatives identified
in the FPEIS that were considered in making this decision, and explains
why NRCS selected the Preferred Alternative--EWP Program Improvement
and Expansion (Alternative 4) for improving the EWP Program. The public
may access the NRCS responses to substantive comments on the FPEIS at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ewp/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Victor Cole, USDA/NRCS/Financial
Assistance Programs Division, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, DC, 20013-
2890, (202) 690-0793, or e-mail: victor.cole@usda.gov. The EWP FPEIS
including appendices and this ROD may be accessed via the Internet on
the NRCS Web site at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ewp/.  
More detailed information on this program may also be obtained from the 
NRCS web site, or by contacting Victor Cole using the information provided
above.

Record of Decision

I. The Decision

A. FPEIS Preferred Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion--
as the Basis for Implementing and Expanding the EWP Program
    Based on a thorough evaluation of the resource areas affected by
the EWP Program, a detailed analysis of four Program alternatives, and
a comprehensive review of public comments on the Draft PEIS, NRCS has
selected the Preferred Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and
Expansion (Alternative 4) to improve and expand the EWP Program to
improve the timeliness and environmental, economic, and social
defensibility of activities conducted under the Program, as well as to
ensure their technical soundness.
B. Overview
    The EWP Program funds and provides technical assistance to
sponsoring organizations (entities of local government) to implement
emergency measures for runoff retardation and soil erosion prevention
to assist in relieving imminent hazards to life and property from
natural disasters, including, but not limited to, floods, fires,
windstorms, ice storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic actions,
earthquakes, and 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 (Pub. 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).
The EWP Program is administered by NRCS on state, tribal, and private
lands, with funding typically provided through Congressional emergency
supplemental appropriations. NRCS regulations implementing the EWP
Program are set forth in 7 CFR part 624.
C. Programmatic Changes to the EWP Program
    Fifteen key aspects of the current EWP Program were considered for
improvement or expansion in the PEIS, and were used to define the
alternatives to the current program in the PEIS. To implement the
Preferred Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion, NCRS
would incorporate the following 15 elements to improve the delivery and
defensibility of the Program and incorporate new restoration practices:
    1. Retain the term ``exigency''; eliminate ``non-exigency.'' NRCS
would not eliminate the key term ``exigency'' because of its broad
interagency use but would eliminate the term non-exigency and simply
refer to them as emergencies.
    2. No State level funding for immediate exigency response. Change
allowed time to address exigencies to 10 days. Funding would not be set
aside in each of the States to immediately address exigencies, though
the time frame to respond to exigencies would be lengthened to 10 days
to allow more time to request and secure funding and to allow NRCS and
sponsors to secure any necessary emergency permits and comply with any
applicable Federal and State laws or regulations.
    3. Set priorities for funding of EWP practices. NRCS would suggest
priorities to be applied consistently across the country for funding
EWP measures. Exigency situations would have highest priority.
    4. Establish cost-share of up to 75 percent; up to 90 percent in
limited-resource areas; and add a waiver provision allowing up to 100
percent in unique situations. In addition to the changes in Federal
cost-share rates, a waiver provision would be included allowing up to
100 percent cost-sharing for a sponsor in unique situations or when the
sponsor demonstrates they have insufficient resources or finances to
contribute the 25 percent cost-share.
    5. Stipulate that practices be economically, environmentally, and
socially defensible. In addition to environmental and economic
defensibility, project alternatives would be reviewed to determine
their acceptability according to the ideals and background of the
community and individuals directly affected by the recovery activity.
    6. Improve disaster-readiness through interagency coordination,
planning, and training. Major steps would be taken to improve
interagency coordination, planning, and training. Although Disaster
Assistance Recovery Teams

[[Page 17054]]

would not become a major Program element, technical teams for specific
disasters, or to provide programmatic training, would be assembled.
    7. Allow repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound
engineering alternatives. This element would permit sound structural
measures to be repaired where they are economically, environmentally,
and socially defensible.
    8. Limit repair of sites to twice in any 10-year period. Where a
site has been restored twice and 10 or fewer years have elapsed since
the first disaster event, the options remaining available under the EWP
Program would be to acquire a floodplain easement, fund a buyout with
structure removal as a recovery measure, or take no action at all.
    9. Eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property
owners) be threatened before a site would be eligible for EWP Program
repairs. NRCS recognized that in almost every instance benefits accrue
to someone downstream of the impairment area.
    10. Apply the principles of natural stream dynamics and bio-
engineering in restoration.
    11. Simplify purchase of agricultural floodplain easements;
eliminate land designation categories. NRCS would establish a single
agricultural floodplain easement category and would specify compatible
landowner uses.
    12. Repair enduring (structural or long-life) conservation
practices, except when such measures are under ECP jurisdiction.
Conservation practices, such as waterways, terraces, diversions,
irrigation systems, and animal waste systems that are damaged during a
disaster event would be eligible for EWP Program cost-share assistance.
However, repair of enduring conservation practices or disaster-recovery
work that is eligible for emergency assistance under the Emergency
Conservation Program would not be eligible under EWP.
    13. Partially fund improved alternative solutions. The EWP Program
would be allowed to partially fund work that would be eligible for
disaster recovery throughout the impaired watershed, but when a sponsor
desires a more extensive or differently designed solution than NRCS
would initially recommend, the sponsor is required to pay 100 percent
of the additional costs.
    14. Allow disaster-recovery work in floodplains away from streams
and in upland areas, where such measures are not under ECP
jurisdiction. Expansion of the EWP Program to include areas in an
impaired watershed not directly adjacent to streams would allow the
removal of sediment deposits from cropland and pastures and other
debris (generally wind-blown material) from land and environmentally
sensitive areas and plantings when necessary for runoff retardation or
soil erosion prevention.
    15. Allow purchase of floodplain easements on non-agricultural
lands only to fully restore floodplain function but not where small
rural communities are at issue. Fund buyouts for recovery of small
flood-prone communities through sponsors. NRCS would not purchase
floodplain easements on lands with multiple property owners and
residences for the sole purpose of relocating small flood-prone rural
communities under the floodplain easement portion of the EWP Program.
However, as an EWP recovery measure, NRCS would consider cost-sharing
with a sponsor to fund buyouts of residents in such flood-prone
circumstances when it would be the most cost-effective and
environmentally preferable recovery measure.

II. Description of the Current EWP Program

    NRCS administers the EWP Program to respond to life and property-
threatening watershed impairments caused by natural disasters. Local
sponsors (e.g., counties, conservation districts) who request EWP
assistance provide at least 20 percent of funding for EWP watershed
repair practices. NRCS may provide up to 80 percent of funding and
technical assistance (up to 100 percent for exigency) for EWP practices
that remove disaster debris; repair damaged streambanks, dams, and
dikes; protect floodplain structures; and restore critical watershed
uplands. The EWP Program is one among a number of Federal and State-
level programs dealing with disaster assistance and watershed
management. It has been characterized in public comments as one of the
most responsive to local needs in small, rural watersheds.
    The major practices currently employed under EWP include stream
flow capacity restoration; stream bank restoration and protection; dam,
dike, and levee repair; protection of structures in floodplains; and
restoration of critical upland portions of watersheds. The EWP
practices generally share common activities: creating access to reach a
damage site, use of heavy equipment on bank, in-stream, or on uplands,
material disposal, and grading, shaping, and revegetating portions of
the site as appropriate. EWP also currently administers a voluntary
program of floodplain easement purchase on agricultural lands.
    The EWP Manual documents NRCS policy governing EWP; the National
EWP Handbook covers field procedures. NRCS staff administers the EWP
Program in the field when sponsors request assistance with disaster
damage. NRCS completes Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) describing the
watershed impairments at a particular site, their eligibility for
repairs, the cost and benefits of appropriate repair practices, and the
environmental and technical soundness of the proposed measures. The EWP
regulations, manual, and handbook (including the DSR) would be revised
to reflect any Program changes NRCS decides to adopt.
    The 1996 Farm Bill authorization of floodplain easements provides
NRCS with an opportunity to purchase easements on flood-prone lands as
an alternative to traditional eligible EWP practices. It is not
intended to deny any party access to the traditional eligible EWP
practices. It is intended to provide a permanent alternative solution
to repetitive disaster assistance payments and to achieve greater
environmental benefits where the situation warrants and where the
affected landowner is willing to participate in the floodplain easement
approach. The National Watersheds Manual 390-V, Circular 4, provides
the current Program guidance for acquisition of floodplain easements.
Currently, three categories of easements are eligible for purchase on
agricultural lands that are frequently damaged: (1) Allows no
agricultural uses, (2) allows certain compatible uses such as
timbering, haying, and grazing, (3) allows cropping as well as
timbering, haying, and grazing.
    Exigency (high priority emergency situations) sites receive
immediate attention and priority in funding. NRCS coordinates its work
with Federal agencies, principally the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), and with State agencies, including the relevant State Historic
Preservation Office, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and other
consulting agencies, such as federally recognized tribes, wildlife
resource and water quality offices, tribal governments, and local
communities. At issue are important regulatory and environmental
requirements, such as protecting federally listed endangered or
threatened species and preserving unique cultural and historic
resources, including those listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.

[[Page 17055]]

III. Alternatives Considered

    In September 1998, NRCS initiated a formal scoping process to
solicit input on issues, concerns, and opportunities for EWP Program
improvement from the public and other local and Federal agencies.
Public scoping meetings were advertised in regional and local
newspapers and held in six cities located throughout the country. NRCS
published notices in the Federal Register and national newspapers
stating that the agency was preparing a PEIS and that input was being
sought through multiple venues, including the public scoping meetings,
regular mail, e-mail, and a toll-free phone line. NRCS also held
discussions with other agencies, including Farm Service Agency, EPA,
USFS, FEMA, USACE, and USFWS, as well as NRCS field personnel who
routinely deal with EWP projects. Based on input from scoping, NRCS
developed, and evaluated in detail in the Draft EWP PEIS, three
alternatives for future administration of the EWP Program, which are
described in detail below: the No Action alternative (Alternative 1),
NRCS' Draft PEIS Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and Prioritized
Watershed Planning and Management (Alternative 3).
    Based on comments from other agencies and the public on the Draft
EWP PEIS, comments on the Proposed EWP Rule (published on November 19,
2003 in the Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 223), and internal agency
considerations concerning management, funding, and implementation
feasibility of EWP Program changes, NRCS developed a fourth alternative
(the Preferred Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion),
which was fully evaluated in the Final EWP PEIS. The Preferred
Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion--incorporates many
of the elements of improvement and expansion proposed under the Draft
PEIS Proposed Action, but leaves some elements unchanged or introduces
only minor changes when compared with the No Action. The EWP FPEIS also
fully described and evaluated the three Draft EWP PEIS alternatives.
A. Alternative 1--No Action (Continue the Current Program)
    NRCS would continue to conduct the current EWP Program as it does
now with no improvement or expansion. The 15 elements of the current
EWP Program that would remain in effect under the No Action Alternative
include:
    1. Continue using the terms ``exigency'' and ``non-exigency'' as
they are now used. An exigency exists when the near-term probability of
damage to life or property is high enough to demand immediate Federal
action. A non-exigency situation exists when the near-term probability
of damage to life or property is high enough to constitute an
emergency, but not sufficiently high to be considered an exigency.
    2. Continue current exigency response procedures. NRCS National
Headquarters would continue to respond to State requests to provide
funding for exigency responses as they are received by NHQ and would
not provide each State with separate ``pre-disaster'' funding for ``on
the spot'' State-level responses. NRCS would continue to allow 30 days
to address exigencies.
    3. Continue using current procedures for project prioritization.
NRCS State Conservationists would continue to prioritize EWP projects
for their States in non-Presidentially declared disasters and may
include input from the sponsors in these decisions. In Presidentially
declared disasters, NRCS would continue working with FEMA and the USACE
in establishing priorities.
    4. Continue to administer EWP under current cost-share rates. NRCS
would continue to provide EWP funding at a Federal cost-share of up to
100 percent for exigencies and up to 80 percent for non-exigencies.
[Note: Although current regulations tie cost-sharing to the exigency/
non-exigency designation, for the past 10 years, NRCS has been applying
a single cost-share rate of 75 percent to both exigency and non-
exigency situations.]
    5. Continue to employ current defensibility review requirements.
NRCS would continue to review EWP recovery practices to determine
whether they are economically and environmentally defensible.
    6. Continue current EWP Program coordination, training and planning
in each State.
    7. Continue to disallow repair of impairments to agricultural
lands. This would preclude use of restoration measures to protect high-
value croplands from continued erosion caused by future flooding.
    8. Continue to allow repeated repairs to EWP sites. NRCS would
impose no restrictions on the number of repeated repairs of damaged EWP
sites that could be funded.
    9. Continue to require multiple beneficiaries for non-exigency
measures. NRCS would continue to require that multiple beneficiaries be
identified and documented in the project Damage Survey Report (DSR) for
site repair of non-exigency emergencies. This is not a requirement for
exigencies where sites with single beneficiaries are eligible for EWP
repairs.
    10. Continue to employ only least-cost restoration measures. NRCS
would continue to fund disaster recovery measures on a least-cost basis
for repair of site damage alone, so long as they are environmentally
defensible, without regard to ancillary environmental considerations or
benefits.
    11. Continue to allow land-owner uses of floodplain easements under
the three existing categories. Under the No Action Alternative
published in the Draft EWP PEIS, NRCS would have continued to fund
agricultural floodplain easement purchases under three land-use
categories. Since that time, NRCS has restricted compatible uses to a
single category of uses.
    12. Continue to disallow repairs of enduring conservation practices.
    13. Continue to disallow funding of improved alternative solutions.
NRCS would fund projects based on a least-cost design to achieve the
specific site restoration objectives only, without regard to any
additional benefits sponsors may wish to gain with an expanded but more
expensive design.
    14. Continue to disallow disaster-recovery work away from streams
and critical areas.
    15. Continue to disallow purchase of floodplain easements on
improved lands. Under the No Action Alternative published in the Draft
EWP PEIS, NRCS would have continued to disallow purchase of floodplain
easements on improved lands. Since that time, NRCS has instituted
procedures to acquire improved lands in connection with floodplain
easement purchases where continued use of those lands would affect
NRCS' ability to attain the benefits of the floodplain easement by
restoring full floodplain function.
B. Alternative 2--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion (Draft PEIS
Proposed Action)
    The 15 specific EWP Program changes to improve the delivery and
defensibility of the Program and incorporate new restoration practices
under the Draft PEIS Proposed Action included:
    1. Eliminate the terms ``exigency'' and ``non-exigency.''
    2. Stipulate that ``urgent and compelling'' situations be addressed
immediately upon discovery. In a situation that demands immediate
action to avoid potential loss of life or property, employees with
procurement authority would be permitted to hire a contractor to remedy
a watershed

[[Page 17056]]

impairment immediately after evaluation of the site.
    3. Set priorities for funding of EWP measures. NRCS would suggest
priorities to be applied consistently across the country for funding
EWP measures. Urgent and compelling situations would have highest priority.
    4. Establish a cost-share rate of up to 75 percent for all EWP
projects (except for projects in limited-resource areas, where sponsors
may receive up to 90 percent, and floodplain easements, which are
funded at 100 percent).
    5. Stipulate that measures be economically, environmentally, and
socially defensible and identify the criteria to meet those
requirements. Project alternatives would be reviewed to determine their
acceptability according to the ideals and background of the community
and individuals directly affected by the recovery activity. A combination 
of all three categories would be used to determine defensibility.
    6. Improve disaster-recovery readiness through interagency
coordination, training, and planning. NRCS would employ Disaster
Assistance Recovery Training teams to train its employees, evaluate and
implement ways to improve coordination between EWP and other emergency
programs, and assist State Conservationists in preparing Emergency
Recovery Plans detailing working relationships with other Federal,
State, and local groups.
    7. Allow repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound
engineering alternatives.
    8. Limit repair of sites to twice in a 10-year period. Where a site
has been restored twice and 10 or fewer years have elapsed since the
first disaster event, the options remaining available under the EWP
Program would be to acquire a floodplain easement or take no action at all.
    9. Eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property
owners) be threatened before a site would be eligible for EWP Program
repairs.
    10. Apply the principles of natural stream dynamics and, where
appropriate, use bioengineering in the design of EWP restoration
practices. DART teams would incorporate these design principles into
disaster-readiness training of NRCS staff and provide more intensive
training to NRCS staff responsible for EWP practice design and review.
    11. Simplify purchase of agricultural floodplain easements. NRCS
would establish a single agricultural floodplain easement category and
would specify compatible landowner uses.
    12. Repair enduring (structural or long-life) conservation
practices. Conservation practices such as waterways, terraces,
diversions, irrigation systems, and animal waste systems that are
damaged during a disaster event would be eligible for EWP Program cost-
share assistance.
    13. Partially fund expanded or improved alternative solutions. This
would allow the EWP Program to help fund work that would be eligible
for disaster recovery throughout the impaired watershed, but that would
constitute a more extensive or differently designed solution than NRCS
would initially recommend.
    14. Allow disaster-recovery work in floodplains away from streams
and in upland areas. This change would allow the removal of sediment
deposits from cropland and pastures and other debris from land and
environmentally sensitive areas and plantings or other measures to
prevent erosion.
    15. Purchase floodplain easements on non-agricultural lands.
Floodplain easements would be purchased on both unimproved and improved
lands. For improved land, NRCS would provide 100 percent of the cost of
an easement that conveys all interests and rights. Any structures would
be demolished or relocated outside the 100-year floodplain at no
additional cost to the government.
C. Alternative 3--Prioritized Watershed Planning and Management
    This alternative would allow NRCS to focus EWP Program efforts
proactively on disaster-prone watersheds and integrate those efforts
with other USDA programs dealing with watershed issues. Prioritized
watershed planning would combine the changes of Alternative 2 with
focused, Program-neutral, disaster-readiness and mitigation planning
for selected high-priority watersheds. In addition to instituting all
15 Program improvements and expansions described under the Draft PEIS
Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the EWP Program elements implemented
under Alternative 3 would include:
    a. Continuing to deliver EWP project funding and technical
assistance to address immediate threats to life and property as
required by law. This would continue to be the highest, but not sole,
priority in the EWP Program.
    b. Facilitating a locally led pre-disaster planning effort. This
locally-led effort initiated and coordinated by NRCS would address
concerns about recurrent application of EWP repair measures in
watersheds that have a history of frequent disasters and integrate EWP
activities in those watersheds with NRCS programs dealing with other
watershed issues.
    c. Funding of priority watersheds in each State for pre-disaster
planning and management. High priority watersheds and, as funding
permits, medium priority watersheds would undergo pre-disaster planning
and management providing there is a local sponsor (State, county,
tribal organization or other eligible entity) who agrees to sponsor the
pre-disaster planning.
    d. Coordinating pre-disaster planning and management efforts with
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested stakeholders. This
would include establishing an overall watershed management plan;
integrating other program authorities and practices available to NRCS;
purchasing floodplain easements on a stepwise, proactive, risk-
reduction basis; and combining EWP with other program authorities to
enhance watershed values.
D. Alternative 4--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion (Preferred
Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion)
    The Preferred Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion--
would incorporate the 15 changes discussed under ``Programmatic Changes
to the EWP Program'' above.

IV. Impacts Under the Alternatives

    This section summarizes some of the effects that would be expected
to occur to such resource areas as aquatic, riparian, and floodplain
ecosystems, wetland communities, and human communities under each of
the four alternatives.
A. Alternative 1--No Action (Continue the Current Program)
    This alternative has the lowest likelihood of addressing watershed
level effects (e.g., water quality). Minor adverse effects from
restoration practices would continue to occur and would add to habitat
loss in riparian, floodplain, and wetland ecosystems and loss of
natural floodplain functioning that are a contributing part of general
watershed decline. Agricultural floodplain easements may mitigate these
effects in some watersheds.
    Aquatic Ecosystems: Under Alternative 1, aquatic ecosystems would
continue to benefit in the short-term from restoration of channel
capacity and reduction of bank erosion at EWP repair sites. The
hydrology of disaster-damaged stream reaches would be restored and
turbidity and sedimentation reduced, which would improve conditions for
aquatic life in

[[Page 17057]]

many respects. However, aquatic ecosystems would continue to be
adversely affected in the longer-term primarily due to the widespread
emphasis on the use of armoring and removal of in-stream debris.
Generally, armoring and levee repairs would continue to provide lower
quality habitat for aquatic life, limit riparian vegetation growth, and
redirect stream energy to downstream locations with potentially
damaging consequences, such as increased flow velocities and increased
turbidity in downstream reaches. Adverse effects on habitat structure
would likely continue to occur from almost complete removal of in-
stream debris, as this removes habitat and nutrients. Continuing to use
three easement categories would result in some easement lands serving
as natural floodplains; others would support intensive agriculture.
Category 1 easements would increase filtration, improve vegetation, and
increase flood storage. Category 3 would continue to contribute to
agricultural runoff and declines in water quality.
    Riparian Ecosystems: Under Alternative 1, riparian communities and
streambanks would continue to be adversely affected, primarily due to
continued reliance on armoring practices and levee repairs. While these
practices do stabilize streambanks, the structures used limit or damage
riparian vegetation, reduce the quality of habitat for aquatic and
riparian species, redirect streamflow energy further downstream, and
restrict natural floodplain function. Additionally, current methods for
creating access and clearing and snagging may adversely affect
streambank stability and habitat quality. Increased use of natural
structural materials may mitigate these impacts. Floodplain easements
would offer improved habitat from increased vegetative cover. Category
1 would yield the greatest potential benefits, while Category 3 would
yield minimal benefits.
    Floodplain Ecosystems: Under Alternative 1, floodplain ecosystems
would continue to be adversely affected, since armoring alters natural
floodplain function and levees confine flood flows to the stream
channel, protecting the lands behind them while preventing the
development of natural floodplain function. Stream energy would
continue to be channeled to downstream reaches and floodplain habitat
would continue to be absent or underdeveloped. Substantive improvements
would occur with Category 1 floodplain easements, as easement purchases
would return developed lands to a more natural state, improving water
quality, habitats, and infiltration. Category 3 easements offer minimal
benefit, as intensive agriculture is allowed.
    Wetland Communities: Under Alternative 1, wetland communities may
continue to be adversely affected, as many restoration practices act to
restrict stream hydrology and normal flood regime and may limit the
water available for wetland functions. Filtration, flood retention,
groundwater recharge and wetland habitat functions may be affected.
However, continued purchase of agricultural floodplain easements would
continue to restore some natural flooding conditions, improving wetland
hydrology in some watersheds, and would continue to promote wetland
creation or growth, resulting in increased wetland habitat.
    Human Communities: Continuation of the current Program would be
expected to have a minimal impact on the local economy of affected
communities. Most of the proposed projects are relatively small in
scope and the total dollar expenditures would not contribute
substantially to the local economy. Alternative 1 would benefit the
local economy from restoration of previous productive land use and
value. Purchase of floodplain easements could result in a loss of
employment and income from agricultural land, but would reduce demand
for services and disaster assistance, and may provide the additional
benefit of protecting open space and improving the visual or
recreational quality of an area. With respect to infrastructure and
social resources and services, the effect of the Program is generally
beneficial. Some temporary disruption of social patterns during project
construction may result, but no permanent disruption to local
community. Short-term benefits would occur from protecting public
health and safety; however, in disaster-prone areas, long-term public
health and safety concerns would remain high.
B. Alternative 2--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion (Draft PEIS
Proposed Action)
    This alternative would have an increased likelihood of addressing
watershed level effects than Alternative 1 from using environmentally
preferable practices (design based on the principles of natural stream
dynamics and bioengineering) and more floodplain easements on non-
agricultural lands. There would be a reduced likelihood of adverse
impacts on aquatic, riparian, wetland, and floodplain ecosystems. Use
of non-agricultural floodplain easements would encourage more
restricted land uses of floodplains.
    Aquatic Ecosystems: Under Alternative 2, Program-wide training in
and use of stream restoration design based on the principles of natural
stream dynamics and floodplain easements would provide substantial
benefits to aquatic ecosystems. These practices would help restore
sinuosity, regulate stream flow, create aquatic habitat, increase
channel structure quality, and improve water quality. Increased use of
bioengineering may also better regulate water temperatures. Under the
Alternative 2, only one category of agricultural floodplain easement
would be available, which would allow compatible uses such as grazing,
haying or timber. Purchase of agricultural and improved land floodplain
easements would reduce urban and agricultural runoff, improving water
quality. This type of easement would improve habitats, channel
structure, and floodplain function. Requiring a buffer strip on all
floodplain easements and fencing on grazing floodplain easements will
help to maintain or improve environmental conditions.
    Riparian Ecosystems: Under the Alternative 2, emphasis on stream
restoration based on the principles of natural stream dynamics and
increased floodplain easement purchases could provide considerable
benefits for riparian communities. These practices would promote
natural re-vegetation, stabilize streambanks, dissipate stream energy,
establish aquatic and riparian habitat, and restore natural channel
structure and morphology. Easements would serve to augment these
benefits by restoring floodplain function and establishing riparian
forests and buffer zones.
    Floodplain Ecosystem Impacts: Under Alternative 2, inclusion of
recovery measures to restore natural stream dynamics and an increased
emphasis on easements would improve floodplain function, increase flood
retention capabilities, substantially improve hydrology, and promote
floodplain habitat. Natural stream dynamics may lead to change in land
use to more natural land uses, as stream channel is allowed to meander.
Limitations on compatible uses within floodplain easements may offer
benefits to water quality, infiltration, and groundwater recharge.
    Wetland Communities: Under Alternative 2, natural stream dynamics
and a focus on floodplain easement purchase may lead to improvements in
wetland communities. By restoring to more natural hydrologic regimes,
wetlands may be restored in areas with appropriate soils and hydrology.

[[Page 17058]]

Easements would also likely restore wetlands and wetland functions, as
periodic flooding would promote wetland growth and development.
    Human Communities: Alternative 2 would be generally beneficial to
affected human communities. Increased Federal cost-share for projects
in limited resource communities and expansion of the defensibility
criteria for EWP projects would substantially increase access to
potentially beneficial effects of the projects for socially
disadvantaged or minority persons who may have been previously excluded
and would reduce the potential financial burden on these communities.
By establishing a social rationale based on the use of the property by
the landowner, the proposed action includes a category of participant
who might otherwise have been excluded from the current Program,
especially in circumstances where the economic value of a property may
be low or difficult to calculate.
    Expansion of the floodplain easement option to include non-
agricultural and improved land would likely increase the potential for
short-term disruption of local communities or neighborhoods by the
displacement of residents, but it also represents an opportunity for
the community to reduce the long-term impact of natural disasters and
the associated recovery cost, especially on improved properties. The
general effect on the local economy would be similar to Alternative 1;
however, expansion of floodplain easements to improved land may have a
greater impact on employment and income from affected properties.
Easement purchases may result in the loss of business, commercial, or
residential structures, or alter previous land uses on or land value of
subject and neighboring properties. Where floodplain easements are
purchased, there is some possibility that the easements could become
part of an area's comprehensive plan for growth, by meeting a portion
of the need for functional open space for the community.
C. Alternative 3--Prioritized Watershed Planning and Management
    Alternative 3 would have the highest likelihood of planning for and
addressing watershed level effects, as well as reducing adverse effects
and increasing beneficial effects on aquatic, wetland, floodplain, and
riparian ecosystems, especially in well-managed priority watersheds.
This alternative would also have the highest likelihood of encouraging
the best use of floodplains, but the highest potential for disruption
of older rural communities.
    Aquatic Ecosystems: Alternative 3 would have the same impacts on
aquatic ecosystems as those described under Alternative 2, with the
following additional benefits. Planning and coordination at the local
level would act to focus restoration efforts on high priority disaster-
prone watersheds. Through watershed scale management, the benefits
realized with restoration design based on natural stream dynamics and
purchase of floodplain easements could be amplified, as contiguous
habitat areas and longer reaches of naturally flowing streams could be
restored and improved. This would result in greater improvements in
water quality and more permanent establishment of biotic populations.
    Riparian Ecosystems: Alternative 3 would have the same impacts on
riparian ecosystems as those described under Alternative 2, with the
following additional benefits. Coordinated planning under Alternative 3
may result in: decreased emphasis on local impairments, focusing on
watershed scale stream function; contiguous easement sections, reducing
the need for streambank repairs and benefiting riparian ecosystems; and
contiguous ecosystem components and habitat, such as riparian forests
and buffer zones, which would benefit riparian biota.
    Floodplain Ecosystems: Alternative 3 would have the same impacts on
floodplain ecosystems as those described under Alternative 2, with the
following additional benefits. Coordination and planning under
Alternative 3 may lead to the establishment of large segments of
contiguous, freely flowing stream and floodplain systems in priority
watersheds. Floodplain land uses may be converted to more natural uses,
improving floodplain function and reducing threats to life and
property. Coordinated easement purchases may create contiguous reaches
of well-regulated flows during flooding events and result in an overall
reduction in stream energy and velocity thereby safeguarding lives and
property within that portion of the watershed.
    Wetland Communities: Alternative 3 would have the same impacts on
wetland ecosystems as those described under Alternative 2, with the
following additional benefits. Planning and coordination would likely
lead to further improvements to wetland communities. Watersheds may be
managed for natural stream flows, which may lead to contiguous reaches
with sufficient flooding and natural hydrology to maintain, improve,
and promote wetland areas. This may also result in contiguous segments
of wetland, which would augment the quality of habitat and filtration
capacity. Coordinated easement purchase may result in creation or
growth of more extensive wetland habitat than Alternatives 1 or 2,
resulting in large scale filtration and improving water quality.
    Human Communities: The primary effect of the proposed watershed
planning and management approach under Alternative 3 is the proactive
benefit of allowing watershed planning on a macro scale. Where this
alternative would continue to provide funding and technical assistance
similar to that proposed under Alternative 2, similar impacts would be
anticipated. However, the incorporation of pre-disaster planning and
management of the watershed on a macro scale provides a greater
understanding of a land use vision for the community. The integration
of watershed planning into the process enables environmental concerns
to be addressed as part of the community's long-term growth strategies.
An integrated approach to program management allows for more efficient
use of capital resources and the economic potential of the watershed,
while minimizing adverse environmental effects. Some potential for loss
of existing community resources may be possible, but this is offset by
the increased availability of watershed related recreational,
educational, or other uses. An important beneficial effect associated
with this approach concerns the involvement of multiple program
authorities, local and State agencies, and stakeholders in the process.
    Proactive use of floodplain easements in a planned approach would
minimize potential problems associated with reliance on a project-by-
project approach, especially where neighboring or adjoining properties
are volunteered for the Program at different times and under differing
circumstances. Where easements are purchased, there is the potential
that open spaces can be planned as integral components of the area
landscape. Similar to Alternative 2, purchase of improved lands
floodplain easements could alter the composition or structure of the
community by displacing current residents. Easements could also alter
the existing land uses or may result in the breakup of residential
networks. These potentially adverse effects may be offset, however, by
the more effective use of floodplain easement purchases as a part of a
longer-term flood management and watershed planning approach and could
reduce Federal funding outlays in the

[[Page 17059]]

long-term. This alternative would be the best long-term solution to
protect public health and safety.
D. Alternative 4--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion (Preferred
Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion)
    Alternative 4 would have an increased likelihood of addressing
watershed level effects than Alternative 1 from using environmentally
preferable practices (design based on the principles of natural stream
dynamics and bioengineering) and more floodplain easements on non-
agricultural lands. There would be a reduced likelihood of adverse
impacts on aquatic, riparian, wetland, and floodplain ecosystems due to
emphasis on bio-engineering practices, but more limited reductions from
more limited use of easements than under Alternative 2. Limited support
for buyouts as part of the recovery program would encourage more
restricted uses of the floodplain but may disrupt older rural communities.
    Aquatic Ecosystems: The impacts on aquatic ecosystems under
Alternative 4 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2.
    Riparian Ecosystems: The impacts on riparian ecosystems under
Alternative 4 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2.
    Floodplain Ecosystems: The impacts on floodplain ecosystems under
Alternative 4 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2.
    Wetland Communities: The impacts on wetland communities under
Alternative 4 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2.
    Human Communities: In general, implementation of the Preferred
Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion--would be beneficial
to affected human communities. Funding changes for projects in limited
resource communities and expansion of the defensibility criteria for
EWP projects would substantially increase access to potentially
beneficial effects of the projects for socially disadvantaged or
minority persons who may have been previously excluded and would reduce
the potential burden on these communities. By establishing a social
rationale based on the use of the property by the landowner, the
proposed action includes a category of participant who might otherwise
have been left out of the current Program, especially in circumstances
where the economic value of a property may be low or difficult to
calculate.
    The potential impact of the installation of engineered solutions at
individual sites is similar to that under Alternative 1. Expansion of
the floodplain easement option to include improved lands and limited
funding of buyouts of small flood-prone rural communities would likely
increase the potential for disruption of local communities or
neighborhoods in the short-term by the displacement of some residents,
but it would also present an opportunity for the community to reduce
the long-term impact of natural disasters and the associated recovery
cost on improved properties. Program modifications in funding
priorities and floodplain easement purchase under the Preferred
Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion--would influence the
overall impact of the Program on the human social environment and may
alter the proposed solutions or the manner of participation for
affected communities. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative--EWP
Program Improvement and Expansion--allows for greater opportunities for
cooperation with local land use plans. Easement purchases may result in
the loss of business, commercial, or residential structures, or alter
previous land uses on or land value of subject and neighboring
properties. Where easements are purchased, there is some possibility
that the easements could become part of an area's comprehensive plan
for growth, by meeting a portion of the need for functional open space
for the community.

V. Rationale for the Decision

    The Preferred Alternative--EWP Program Improvement and Expansion--
expands and improves the EWP Program to allow NRCS to more effectively
and efficiently meet EWP statutory requirements and improve the
effectiveness of agency responses to sudden watershed impairments
caused by natural disasters. The Preferred Alternative--EWP Program
Improvement and Expansion--beneficially affects aquatic, riparian,
floodplain, and wetland ecosystems and human communities. While NRCS
recognizes that Alternative 3, ``Prioritized Watershed Planning and
Management,'' would likely be the environmentally preferable
alternative, the agency supports Alternative 4 (EWP Program Improvement
and Expansion) as its Preferred Alternative because:
    (1) Current law, as interpreted by USDA legal counsel, limits
activities conducted under EWP primarily to disaster recovery work.
Alternative 3 would add a substantial increment of preventative
measures to reduce future flood damages. Legislative authority would be
required to implement such a major expansion of the purpose of EWP
under Alternative 3.
    (2) To a large extent, NRCS has integrated the management of its
water resources programs within the Water Resources Branch of the
National Headquarters Financial Assistance Programs Division, working
closely with the NHQ Easement Programs Branch. Together they oversee
the recovery practices and floodplain easements portions of EWP and
provide funding and technical assistance and training to the NRCS State
Offices. NRCS is limited in fully implementing the scope of Alternative
3 primarily by funding constraints. Several NRCS watershed programs
currently exist under P.L. 566 and P.L. 534 that address watershed-
scale planning and management and include measures for watershed
protection and flood prevention, as well as the cooperative river basin
surveys and investigations. The structural and non-structural practices
implemented and the easements purchased under those programs have
greatly reduced the need for future EWP measures in project watersheds.
Nevertheless, EWP must remain available to deal with the aftermath of
major natural disasters regardless of improvements under the other
watershed programs.

VI. Implementation and Mitigation

    NRCS would continue to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in any
situation where there is a potential to affect threatened or endangered
species, critical habitat, and anadromous fish species and would work
with USFWS and NMFS to develop adequate protective measures.
Aquatic Community, Wetland, Floodplain, and Riparian Resources
    Many potentially adverse impacts to these resources could be
minimized by reducing the use of structural EWP practices that harden
stream banks, eliminate riparian vegetation, and generally increase
runoff and the consequent delivery of pollution sources to the stream.
Use of restoration designs based on the principles of natural stream
dynamics, and bioengineering would help mitigate these impacts. Other
governmental programs could be encouraged to restore and rehabilitate
armoring sites to a more natural riparian state where practicable.
Where such natural practices are inappropriate, ensuring that the
structural EWP practices are properly maintained would help mitigate the

[[Page 17060]]

need for additional structural practices due to failure of the original
structures.
    Coordination with other Federal, State, and local agencies and the
landowning public to encourage understanding of the concepts underlying
the EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines for wetlands protection in land use
activities, and ensuring that the guidelines are followed as a planning
practice, as well as for wetlands mitigation, would help mitigate the
loss of both wetlands and floodplain resources.
Watershed Upland Resources
    Reducing the dependence of EWP Program activities on structural
practices would help mitigate damage to terrestrial resources by
reducing the use of heavy equipment in surrounding upland areas. Use of
more advanced techniques such as helicopter seeding for critical area
treatments would reduce heavy equipment impacts on soils.
Socioeconomic and Other Human Resources
    Impacts on local economies resulting from funding EWP activities
can potentially be mitigated by keeping bid packages for EWP work
small, so that local contractors with the skills required would have a
fair chance to obtain the work, thus returning some portion of the
funds to the locality. Where floodplain easements are used in place of
structural practices, floodplain usage may be reduced, requiring
relocation of people and activities currently in those areas. Attention
paid to preserving and protecting neighborhood structure and
residential networking can mitigate the effects of this relocation. In
rural communities, certain institutional structures, such as churches,
schools, and other ``special'' places, may require special
consideration to mitigate adverse effects from such changes.
    Where land under floodplain easement purchase is removed from
economically productive activities, which were contributing to the
local economy and tax base, compensation can be encouraged through
seeking alternative replacement activities through such vehicles as
HUD's urban development block grants and similar public-private
measures. There would be some measure of local economic self-correction
inherent in the process anyway, because the community would no longer
need to provide the same level of services (power, sewer, road repair)
to the easement locality and would no longer have to pay their share of
the cost of disaster damage repairs in the future. Nevertheless, NRCS
would encourage income-producing activities on floodplain easement
lands that would be compatible with their basic purpose. On improved
lands floodplain easements where the sponsor gains title to the land,
entry fee to open space uses such as trails, walkways, fishing and boat
access might be feasible. On agricultural floodplain easements, the
landowner keeping title might charge a fee for hunting.
Cultural Resources
    If NRCS determines that an adverse effect is going to occur during
program implementation, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6, the agency
will continue consultation to resolve (avoid, mitigate, or minimize)
this effect. NRCS shall notify the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) of this determination and continued consultation
and invite the Council to participate. The NRCS shall also involve all
previous consulting parties (including but not limited to the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer (THPO), and tribes) and provide them all, including the ACHP,
with the full documentation and a recommendation regarding steps to be
taken to resolve the adverse effect. NRCS will provide a draft of
programmatic agreement that outlines the steps to resolve the adverse
effects and advise the participants of the nature of the resources that
are to be affected.
    Currently, some NRCS field offices define the Area of Potential
Effect (APE) for EWP projects as the immediate site location, which may
inadvertently omit addressing potential adverse impacts to listed or
eligible historic properties nearby or downstream. The Cultural
Resource Coordinators in the example site states indicate that EWP
activities need to be very near to historic resources for NRCS to
consider the possibility of impacts. Therefore, at present, unless
potential historic structures located in the floodplain, such as homes
or mills, are directly affected by sudden impairments and NRCS is
planning EWP work to protect them, such resources would not be
considered to be in the APE. In addition, NRCS focus on historic
structures may result in omitting cultural resources such as
archaeological sites, viewsheds, historic landscapes, and cultural
places. With narrowly defined APEs, cultural resources may also be
affected by ancillary activities such as soil borrow and heavy
equipment staging. NRCS' mandatory cultural resources training for
field personnel, given to all new field personnel with cultural
resources responsibilities, is customized in each state to cover the
range and extent of historic, cultural and traditional cultural
resources from region to region within the state. Treatments under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
implementing regulations must, necessarily, be tailored to address the
specific values of these resources. This training, coupled with the EWP
training and consultation with SHPOs, THPOs, and other consulting
agencies, including federally recognized tribes, should ensure that
mitigation is appropriate for cultural resources on a case-by-case basis.
    Consultation with the SHPO, THPO, and other consulting parties,
including federally recognized tribes is a part of the EWP planning and
coordination function before a disaster occurs and contact with the
SHPO/THPO is made before actions at EWP are taken. Because cultural
resources are locality specific, mitigation to protect particular
cultural resources would be developed if needed at the site level as
part of the defensibility review of the EWP practice.
    To minimize impacts to cultural resources, the definition of the
APE will be changed to include the entire area of potential effect,
including ancillary activities resulting form EWP restoration, such as
soil borrow or heavy equipment use. Additionally, recovering
information about cultural resources present in the APE will help the
agency to design the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic
properties or help NRCS determine what additional mitigation measures
may be necessary to address the potential adverse effect of the
projects or actions on NRHP-listed or eligible historic properties.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2005.
Bruce I. Knight,
Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 05-6097 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the Emergency Watershed Protection Program

Local Navigation
