1 / 21

Emergency Watershed Protection

Emergency Watershed Protection. Program Modifications. Why Did We Need a New Rule?. Oversight &Evaluation findings: Inconsistency Ineligible Work Improper cost-share allowed Environmental concerns Inadequate PEIS Floodplain Easement added (Administrative Procedures Act). Chronology.

monifa
Download Presentation

Emergency Watershed Protection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Emergency Watershed Protection Program Modifications

  2. Why Did We Need a New Rule? • Oversight &Evaluation findings: • Inconsistency • Ineligible Work • Improper cost-share allowed • Environmental concerns • Inadequate PEIS • Floodplain Easement added (Administrative Procedures Act)

  3. Chronology • Floodplain easements added to EWP in 1996 • NRCS O&E deficiencies cited 11/10/97 • Initiated work on PEIS with NOI Sep 1998 • 6 public forums from Sept-Oct 1998 • Draft PEIS published in 1999 • Proposed rule first cleared by NRCS 9/6/00 • Proposed rule cleared by NRCS and USDA on 9/10/02 and forwarded to OMB, but was withdrawn by NRCS • Proposed rule published for comment 11/19/03

  4. Clarify “Exigency” and Drop “Non-exigency” • Variety of interpretations • Waiving requirements for NEPA • Cost-sharing tied to categories • O&E report recommended change needed • All sites considered an “emergency” • Need to work with USACE on permits • Provides more consistency

  5. EWP Priorities • Sets EWP priorities • Exigency situations would have the highest priority

  6. Cost-Share Rate of up to 75% • 1981 Rule allows up to 100% in exigent situations – 1993 policy said no more than 75 % • Rate of 75% same as other agencies

  7. Limited Resource Area Cost-Share • Limited Resource Areas • Up to 90 percent cost-share • Based on National Census Data • 11 Percent of the counties will qualify

  8. EWP Project Defensibility • Damage Survey Reports modified in 2000 to ensure that EWP projects meet the defensibility requirements • DSR modified in 2005

  9. Disaster Recovery Readiness • Interagency coordination • Know what agencies will require ahead of time • Know key people well enough to have their trust and cooperation • Pre-disaster planning • Emergency Recovery Plans (ERPs) • Required as well as annual reviews • Include all state and federal disaster agencies

  10. Apply Principles of Fluvial Geomorphology • NRCS received criticism on how we work in streams • Stream Restoration Handbook has started to bring about change • Training conducted in 2000 at regional workshops

  11. Fund Improved Alternative Solutions • Sponsors or landowners often want to do more than is necessary • OK within reason; extra is not at government expense • Emphasizes “locally led”, more responsive to local needs

  12. Work in Floodplains and Upland Areas • NRCS has typically limited itself to stream and adjacent areas • Would include all land uses but must still meet statutory requirements for eligibility • Allow debris clean up from tornadoes and sediment removal

  13. Repair Enduring Conservation Practices • Includes waterways, terraces, diversions, lagoons installed by anyone • Must meet NRCS standards • Will not compete with FSA’s Emergency Conservation Program • Continue to repair dams constructed under PL 78-534 and 83-566 • Sponsors are required

  14. Limiting Repairs to Twice in Ten Years • Repair to pre-existing, stable conditions • Not the federal government’s job to bail out on a continual basis • NRCS will repair the same site twice within 10 years (as of May 4, 2005) • Do nothing or floodplain easements only option after that • Does not include debris removal

  15. Multiple Beneficiaries Not Required • Policy has always been this way to avoid windfall benefits • Experience shows there are almost always downstream benefits as well • Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) should contain this info • Do not expect any change in delivery to result from this rule change

  16. EWP Funds Used on Federal Lands • Previously, EWP funds used to fund Forest Service projects • EWP funds will only be used on Federal lands when adequate safeguards are followed to avoid inappropriate augmentation of appropriations for other Federal agencies

  17. Removal of Structures • When it is the least costly alternative, landowner volunteers, and does not involve a leasee or rentor • Sponsor is required • NRCS provides cost-share to purchase and remove structure

  18. Review of Program Changes • Exigency –Clarified & no longer use Non-exigency • Set Priorities-Exigency have highest • Cost-share 75% • Limited Resource cost-share 90%

  19. Review of Program Changes • Disaster Recovery Readiness • Bioengineering • Alternative Solutions • Work away from streams • Repair Enduring Conservation Practices

  20. Review of Program Changes • DSR modified to ensure defensibility • Two-in-Ten year repair • Single Beneficiary • Funds not used on Federal lands

  21. Summary • Expands the EWP program • More equitable program • Ensures NRCS has the full range of emergency “tools” • Emphasizes NRCSs commitment to conserve and protect the environment • Will not infringe on FSA’s or FEMA,s authority

More Related