SCS--75 1572 - D
MONT
3 5556 025 360 207
USDA-SCS-ES-FP-(ADM)-74-1-D
Emergency Watershed Protection Program Authorized by
Section 216 of the
Flood Control Act of 1950, Public Law 31-516 (33 USC 7016-1)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Kenneth E. Grant
Administrator
Soil Conservation Service
Evanston, IL C0201
Norih ocion y Libra
Transportation Library
NEFA COLLECTION
March: 1974
Prepared by:
United States Department of Agricultur
Soil Conservation Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
USDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ergency Watershed Protection Program, Authorized by Section 216 of
e flood Control Act of 1950, Public Law 81-516 (33 USC 701b-1)
Prepared in Accordance with
Sec. 102(2) (C) of P. L. 91-190
Summary Sheet
DRAFT
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
ADMINISTRATIVE
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Emergency watershed protection program authorizes measures to be
installed to safeguard lives and property from floods and the
products of erosion whenever fire or other natural element or
force causes a sudden impairment of a watershed. Frequently
used emergency measures include: establishment of vegetative cover,
gully control structures, streambank protection, debris and
sediment removal from channels, and emergency repair of existing
dams, dikes and other water control structures.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Reduces erosion, sedimentation, runoff and improves water quality
by lowering turbidity. Protects lives and property from further
damage by floods or products of erosion. In some cases, the
installation of emergency measures may temporarily degrade in-
channel fish habitat by increasing stream sedimentation and water
temperature, loss of wildlife habitat on construction areas and
access routes, increase sediment and debris removal and reinstate
the relationship of upstream and downstream flooding that existed -
in the pre-disaster environmental condition.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
Complete watershed protection and flood prevention, land use changes
and other flood plain management measures, increased funding of
existing program, existing program without sediment and debris removal,
streambank stabilization and open channel measures, and no program
are the alternatives considered.
VII.
AGENCIES FROM WHICH WRITTEN COMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED
Department of the Army
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Power Commission
VIII.
DRAFT STATEMENT TRANSMITTED TO CEQ ON
March 28, 1974
Date
Table of Contents
Item
Page
Summary
i
Table of Contents
iii
1. Description
1
la.
Forest fires, landslides and other natural events
that leave an area devoid of vegetation
3
1b.
Severe gully and log road erosion caused by storm
water runoff
4
Ic.
Unstable streambanks caused by floods and erosion
forces
5
1d.
Stream channels clogged with debris and sediment
8
le. Damage to existing dams or dikes which pose an
imminent threat to lives and property
9
if.
Implementation of the emergency watershed
protection program
10
2.
Environmental impact
13
2a.
Environmental impacts resulting from establishment
of vegetative cover
13
2b.
Environmental impacts resulting from installation
of gully and log road control structures
14
2c.
Environmental impacts resulting from installation
of streambank stabilization by planting vegetative
cover or use of mechanical protection
15
2d.
Environmental impacts resulting from installation
of channel debris and sediment removal, floodwater
diversions, open channel and debris basins.
.
16
2e.
Environmental impacts resulting from repairing
dikes, dams and other water control structures
17
2f.
Other environmental impacts of combined emergency
watershed protection measures
18
iii
Item
Page
29. Summary of favorable environmental effects
19
2h. Summary of adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided
19
3. Relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity
20
4.
Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources in maintaining resource base for future
uses
20
5. Alternatives
21
5a.
No program
21
5b. Complete watershed protection and flood prevention
program
22
5c.
Land use changes and flood plain management
measures
22
5d.
Increased funding of the existing program
24
5e. Existing emergency watershed protection program
without sediment and debris removal, streambank
stabilization and open channel measures
24
6.
Consultation with appropriate federal agencies and
review by state and local agencies and public
involvement
25
Appendix A
List of References
Appendix B
Watersheds Femorandum-124 (Rev. 1)
Appendix C
Letters of Comments Received On the Draft
Environmental Statement
USDA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Type of Statement:
Draft 1/
Date:
March 1974
Title of Statement: Emergency Watershed Protection Program Authorized
by Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of May 17,
1950, Public Law 81-516 (33 USC 701b-1)
1. Description
Emergency watershed protection is authorized by Section 7 of the
Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, as amended by Section 15
of the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, as amended by
Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, Public
Law 81-516 (33 USC 7016-1). The complete text of the authority is:
"The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized in his
discretion to undertake such emergency measures for runoff
retardation and soil-erosion prevention as may be needed to
safeguard lives and property from floods and the products of
erosion on any watershed whenever fire or any other natural
element or force has caused a sudden impairment of that
watershed: Provided, that not to exceed $300,000 out of any
funds heretofore or hereafter appropriated for the prosecution
by the Secretary of Agriculture of works of improvement or
measures for runoff and water-flow retardation and soil-erosion
prevention on watersheds may be expended during any one fiscal
year for such emergency measures.
Whenever a fire, flood, wind, earthquake, landslide or other sudden
environmental impairment occurs, the natural watershed physical
conditions are drastically altered. The existing pre-disaster
environmental condition is altered to the post-disaster environmental
condition (see figure 1). The intent of emergency watershed protec-
tion is to apply measures to those post-disaster environmental aspects
which threaten the safety of lives and property.
Since this is a program evaluation, it is not possible to anticipate
the extent or exact kinds of emergency conditions that are likely to
occur. The following paragraphs list some typical kinds of emergency
conditions which occur and the kinds of emergency measures commonly
used.
1 All information and data except as otherwise noted was prepared and
analyzed by the Soil Conservation Service, USDA.
2.
Emergency
Watershed
Protection
Accelerated
Recovery
No
Program
indeterminate
Recovery. .
CONTINUOUS CYCLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Pre-disaster
Condition
sudden
impairment
of a
watershed
Post-disaster
Condition
3
la.
Forest fires, landslides and other natural events that leave an
area devoid of vegetation.
Areas devoid of vegetation cannot provide habitat for wildlife
species which formerly occupied them. Most wildlife will escape
from relatively small fires or other natural disasters and reside
in nearby undamaged areas. In disasters covering large areas,
the majority of the affected wildlife will not survive the disaster.
Fish habitat will be destroyed or degraded. Forest fires and other
natural events removing vegetative cover destroy the canopy over
streams. This causes à rise in stream temperature and a corresponding
reduction of stream bio-activity (1) 1/. Landslides will physically
fill and destroy fish habitat. Areas devoid of vegetation produce
accelerated erosion. Sheet erosion may be as high as 39 to 100
tons/acre per year folloring a forest fire (2, 3 and 4). Erosion
becomes the source of sediment held in suspension (5). Increased
sedimentation carries additional nutrients on the soil particles
(6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) thus degrading fish habitat both at the scene of
the disaster and downstream. Accelerated erosion increases stream
turbidity and adversely affects fish habitat (11) as light trans-
mission and other physical properties are reduced or changed.
Accelerated erosion damages property by physically washing away of
soil, deposition of the eroded soil as sediment in watercourses,
reduction of fertility of eroded lands as nutrients are carried
away, and degrading of downstream reaches as soil nutrients enrich
the waters. Erosion rates approaching 190 tons/acre per year have
been measured on exposed unprotected land in Maryland and Virginia
(12 and 13). Erosion rates of 100 tons/acre per year in burned
over forest lands in California have been reported (2). These
erosion rates may not be typical for all areas of the Country
following a sudden environmental impairment of a watershed.
case, erosion rates following a disaster may be unnaturally high and
inhibit the natural recovery from the post-disaster environmental
condition.
In any
Sediment produced by the increased erosion chokes streams, reduces
the conveyance capacity of natural streams and degrades some types
of fish habitat. Thus streams pose a threat of more frequent
flooding and the danger of loss of lives and property. Sediment
from exposed lands may clog water supply and treatment systems,
irrigation structures and man-made improvements.
Lands devoid of vegetation are subject to land slips and slides.
Vigorous vegetation has a developed root system which assists in
holding earth on natural slopes (12, 13, 14 and 15). After a rain-
fall, vegetation assists in the orderly removal of excessive soil
moisture. Without vegetation, no root system exists causing soil
moisture to remain longer and through lubrication helps increase
landslides.
1 Numbers in parentheses refer to list of references in Appendix A.
4
Log roads and trails on burned areas are subject to being washed out
or turned into watercourses when watershed vegetation is removed
(16). Recreation sites and other multiple purpose use of areas
devoid of vegetation are also subject to erosion and sediment damage.
Land devoid of vegetation will produce increased surface runoff
(3 and 4). The increased runoff compounds the threat of flooding by
contributing to storm waters already in the stream system. Change in
runoff will increase the potential for property damage and loss of
lives.
Emergency measures used to alleviate the adverse conditions caused by
areas suddenly devoid of vegetation may be any or all of the following
practices (14): Planting grass, shrubs and trees along with fertili-
zation (15) and mulch in order to establish a vigorous vegetative
cover, and in some cases a diversion may be used to keep excessive
runoff off the seeded area until germination has occurred. Establish-
ment of vegetative cover is the first line of defense against forces
of erosion, sedimentation, accelerated flood runoff and increased
nutrients in water (see list of references as several of the authors
support this conclusion).
lb.
Severe gully and log road erosion caused by storm water runoff
9
Forest fires, floods or other sudden impairment of a watershed will
expose natural watercourses and log roads to conditions more severe
than existed in the pre-disaster environmental condition. As a
result watercourses are exposed to potential gully producing forces.
Severe erosion impairs log roads. Such conditions represent a loss
of property as land is destroyed and washed downstream. These
conditions further aggravate the post-disaster environmental condition.
Erosion rates from gullies have been measured as high as 400 tons/acre
per year (17).
Erosion material from gullies and road banks (16) as well as other
sources becomes sediment which clogs streams and fills lakes
causing spawning, resting and feeding reaches to be covered.
Sediment and the entrapped nutrients contribute to eutrophication
(18 and 19). Sediment flowing into lakes will degrade water quality
by increasing suspended solids and turbidity resulting in degraded
fish habitat (20 and 21).
Wildlife habitat will be of reduced value in areas of active gullies
and severe log road erosion. Normal activities of wildlife species
are interrupted as the erosion has physically washed away land, food,
cover, nests, resting places and other habitat values. Animals
which lived in the areas during pre-disaster environmental conditions
will seek new habitat for their existence.
un
5
Gully control measures may consist of vegetative plantings, land
smoothing or structural measures (14, 22, 23 and 24). Land
smoothing is removing irregularities on the surface to establish
vegetation. Structural measures consist of drop structures,
diversions, and dams. The purpose of structural measures is to
reroute storm water away from active gullies or to control the
water flow over and through natural soils thus reducing the
strength of gully producing forces. In some situations, a dam
may be needed to inundate the active gully and thus prevent further
loss of property.
Log road stabilization principles utilize establishment of vegetative
cover on exposed road banks, cleanout of road ditches and culverts,
diversion of storm water around roadways, the non-erosive control of
water in roadside ditches and mechanical protection of exposed road
and streambanks (14, 25 and 26).
Ic.
Unstable streambanks caused by floods and erosion forces
Floods, forest fires or other sudden impairment of a watershed may
strip away stream channel vegetation. The stream vegetative canopy
affects water temperature (27 and 28) and the availability of food
and nutrients in the aquatic eco-system (1, 29 and 30). These
adverse effects degrade the fish habitat from the pre-disaster
environmental condition.
Lack of streamside vegetation induces flash flooding (1) as storm
water can flow downstream quicker. Also streamside vegetation has a
filtering effect of trapping sediment being carried in flood plain
waters.
The following quotation is from the A. D. Little, Inc., Report on
Channel Modifications, Volume I submitted to the Council on
Environmental Quality, March 1973, page 202 and 203.
"From various studies, it is evident that the natural vegetation
of the watershed and streambanks are extremely important in
controlling excessive temperatures, furnishing food for the
various aquatic organisms in the stream, and regulating flow
and nutrients entering the stream. It is these natural conditions
together with the shape of the channel of a stream, the roughness
of its bed, the diversity of pattern of its current, and its
interrelationship with the vegetation on its immediate banks
that produces a set of conditions to which the stream eco-systems
evolve over time. The vegetation on the immediate banks of a
stream stabilizes the banks and prevents their slumping into the
channel proper and thus increases the sediment load. Typically
these sediment loads are unstable in the bed of the river and
are continually shifting, thus rendering the bed of river
unsuitable as habitats for aquatic life. In these areas the
center of the channel is rarely a suitable habitat for aquatic
life."
6
Overhanging vegetation provides variable light pattern for streams
(1). This variable light pattern increases the diversity of the
aquatic eco-system. The A. D. Little Report (1) also points out
that overhanging vegetation is one of the main sources of detritus
material that gets into the stream. All of these desirable
characteristics are lost when fire, floods or other sudden impair-
ment of a watershed strips away streamside vegetation.
Damaging sediment may be produced by either sheet or channel-type
erosion (4). Coarse-grained sediment is produced mainly by channel-
type erosion, streambank and bed erosion.
The A. D. Little Report (1) reported several adverse impacts of
sediment. "Channelization" as used by A. D. Little Report describes
post-disaster environmental conditions in the stream. The following
several quotes are reproduced from that report.
"Erosion and sediment transport may be manifested by increased
turbidity of the water or the increase of deposition of sediments
within the channel. Sediment, which arises from channelization,
is almost entirely material eroded from the flood plain and the
channel bed and banks. This sediment load is of three types---
suspended solids, bedload, and colloids. The suspended solids
are those particles that are carried along by the current.
Whenever the current is slowed down these suspended solids drop
out, the amount and size of particles dropping out depending
upon how much the current is reduced. The bedload consists of
those sediments that are rolled along the bed of the streams.
The roughness of the stream bed, which is so important in
developing the diversity of habitats for stream organisms, owes
its existence to the high velocity associated with flood flows.
.
"These bedload sediments produce an unstable habitat and as a
result an unfavorable environment for supporting aquatic life.
A bedload naturally occurs in streams that flow through
unconsolidated sediments, but in many streams following channeli-
zation it develops from the erosion of the banks of the stream
together with sediments from other sources.
"The colloidal material is carried for long distances in the
flowing water. Colloids are particularly important because
they adsorb onto their surfaces various nutrients such as ammonia
and phosphates and they also adsorb toxic materials such as heavy
metals. Thus the increase of these colloids within a stream
often results in an increase in nutrients. Indeed, in the Academy
studies there was almost always evidence of increased nutri in
the water when increased silt loads, including colloids, were
present.
8
"The suspended solids load which settles out on the bed of
the stream tends to homogenize the stream bed. It is the
diversity or roughness of the stream bed that is greatly
reduced when the crevices between rocks are filled up and
covered with silt so that the surface of the bed of the river
is composed of sediments of similar-sized particles. Under
these conditions the flow is usually faster and not diverse
in pattern. This homogeneity of substrates and pattern of
flow greatly reduces the habitats for species occupancy.
If a
"Many organisms, particularly fish, often deposit their eggs
in redds, constructed on gravel shoals or in clean sand at
the lower end of a pool or in riffles. This is particularly
true in high-gradient streams. The water that filters through
the sand carries with it oxygen which makes this area an ideal
habitat for the hatching of eggs and the young larvae.
silt load is introduced into the stream, these suspended
particles often settle out between the sand and gravel particles
and fill the interstitial spaces. As a result water with its
oxygen cannot penetrate these areas and the sand becomes unfit
as a breeding ground. The silt may also settle out and suffocate
eggs and larvae."
Vegetative plantings along streambanks are the single most important
measures to stabilize streambank erosion. Other structural measures
such as rock riprap, gabions or mechanical streambank protection
devices may be needed to supplement the vegetative plantings (4, 14,
19, 25, 26 and 31).
1d. Stream channels clogged with debris and sediment
The preceding paragraphs have described how fires denude lands of
protective vegetation and how subsequent storms create accelerated
erosion. The erosion material winds up in streams as sediment.
Likewise fires, floods or other sudden impairments of a watershed
strip streambank vegetation and suddenly expose streams to vast
increases in sediment production. Many of the impacts recognized
in the A. D. Little, Inc., Report (1) and the National Water
Commission Report (32) occur because of the sudden impairment of a
watershed.
The threat of loss of lives and property exists wherever stream channel
conveyance capacity has been reduced, where eroding streambanks are
consuming lands used by man in any of his activities, or where bridge
and road culverts are filled with sediment. The risk of imminent
damage is great, when any of these post-disaster environmental
conditions exist.
i
9
Clogged streams can back water around residential areas causing
failure of basement walls, reduce efficiency of urban stormwater
drainage systems, induce health hazard as sanitary drainage are
hindered and increase breeding of mosquitoes and rats (33).
Hazards to man are in the form of health and safety of the living
conditions. If left uncorrected, residents of these areas often
abandon their homes and migrate to cities (34). Rural to urban
migration tends to further compound severe urban problems.
Clogged streams cause increased flooding of agricultural land
which tends to reduce crop yields in the post-disaster environ-
mental condition. With a reduction in yield, then additional land
is required to produce the amounts of food fiber demanded by society.
Increased man-hours, machinery and fuel are required to bring the
additional lands into production and to produce the agricultural
commodities.
Streams clogged with sediment and debris often flood rural roads.
Rerouting of traffic to longer routes delays delivery and increases
the costs of transportation and the consumption of fuel supplies.
Emergency measures to correct these adverse post-disaster environ-
mental conditions consist of vegetative planting in areas devoid of
cover; removal of sediment and debris from channels, bridges and
road culverts; construction of open channel or floodwater diversion
to reorient the stream to eliminate or reduce the emergency condition;
and installation of debris basins.
le.
Damage to existing dams or dikes which pose an imminent threat to
Tives and property
Floods and other disaster events may damage dikes, dams, gully
stabilization structures, or other structural measures for water
and erosion control. Whenever these structures are damaged to a
degree where an imminent threat to lives and property exists,
emergency repair may be necessary. Failure of an existing structure
would further damage fish and wildlife habitat. Streamside and
flood plain vegetation may be lost as excessive flood stages occur
during a dam or dike failure. Streambanks would be exposed to
severe erosion and the resulting degrading of downstream fishery
habitat.
Emergency watershed protection measures include the immediate repair
of dams, dikes and other structures to protect the post-disaster
environmental condition from further damages. These emergency
repairs do not include those items normally accomplished in the
regular operation and maintenance of the dikes and dams. Emergency
repairs of dams, dikes, levees, grade stabilization structures and
others may include replacement of washed out or weakened earth embank-
ments, repair of damaged spillways and realignment of flood channels
which may be encroaching on developed flood plains.
10
Emergency watershed protection program funds may not be used to
install planned structures or measures that will supplement
structures in authorized water resource projects.
if.
Implementation of the emergency watershed protection program
Following a fire, flood or natural sudden impairment of a watershed
which poses a threat to the safety of lives and properties, requests
are made for funds to install emergency measures. Requests contain
proposals for the amount, kind and estimated cost of emergency water-
shed protection measures that may be needed. To the extent that
funds are available, the Administrator authorizes the emergency
measures to be installed. Specific implementation instructions are
contained in Watersheds Memorandum-124, Revision 1 which is attached
as Appendix B.
In order to obtain federal assistance for funding emergency measures,
sponsoring organizations obtain land and water rights, construction
permits and accept responsibility for maintenance if needed of the
completed emergency measure. Sponsoring organizations may be states
or legal subdivisions of the state including special districts.
Federal, state and local laws and regulations are followed in carrying
out the program. The sponsoring organizations recommend priority for
emergency measure installation.
It is impossible to forecast when an emergency will occur, the cause
or the extent of such an emergency. Therefore, this environmental
statement cannot deal with quantative assessments of emergency
measures to be installed. Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of
1950 authorizes an annual amount not to exceed $300,000 be used for
this purpose. Should no sudden impairment of a watershed occur,
then funds would not be spent.
In recent years, there have been several large scale emergencies
involving more than one state. Supplemental appropriations were made
to provide adequate levels of emergency watershed protection over large
disaster areas. Dates and amounts of supplemental appropriations are
shown in the following table:
Fiscal
Year
Supplemental
Appropriation
Disaster Event
1969
$4,000,000
Forest fires in California,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington
1970
$3,700,000
Hurricane Camille, Virginia
1973
$16,500,000
Hurricane Agnes and Rapid City,
South Dakota flood
1973
$20,000,000
Flooding in the Mississippi
River Valley
11
The need to obtain supplemental appropriations delayed the installa-
tion of emergency watershed protection measures for several months.
Environmental considerations are important objectives in the emergency
watershed protection program. Establishment of a vegetative cover
is the prime objective in reducing erosion, runoff and restoring wild-
life habitat. Vegetative cover involves establishment of a viable
cover or preservation of existing groth. Emergency measures are
selected which will protect natural features or will minimize further
degrading of wildlife habitat. Reduction of erosion and sediment
basins will directly reduce sedimentation which is often of major
proportions following a disaster.
Emergency watershed protection is intended to assist in restoring those
portions of the post-disaster environment which threaten the safety of
lives and property. Emergency measures contribute to the reinstating
of the relationship of upstream and downstream flooding which existed
in the pre-disaster environment. Wherever vegetative cover has been
destroyed or water control structures altered by the disaster event to
the extent that remnant conditions threaten lives and property, then
emergency measures may be used to revegetate or to install measures
to reduce the tireat of increased erosion or flooding. Emergency
measures are encouraged that directly help to restore lost
environmental values.
The following construction techniques are used to minimize stream
sedimentation during emergency measure installation to the maximum
extent practical: work from one side only, provide culverts for stream
crossings, limit work zones to areas upstream and do.vnstream from
highway bridges or other stream access points, revegetate exposed
construction areas immediately after work is completed, and maintain
natural vegetation and streambanks to the fullest extent. Emergency
measures are selected to utilize existing access to the fullest extent.
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Environmental
Protection Agency, state fish and game agencies, and other appropriate
environmental interest are invited to participate in the emergency
watershed protection program. Coordination is related to providing
a harmonious manner with the environment. Other special expertise
needed such as on archeological or historical matters is solicited
from the appropriate agencies or groups. Environmental considerations
are integrated into emergency work using an interdisciplinary planning
approach.
Since it is impossible to anticipate the kinds of future emergencies,
some examples of the amount, kind, diversity and extent of emergency
watershed protection measures installed during the last few years
are given as examples to illustrate various situations that may occur
in future years.
12
Emergency assistance has been provided in a wide variety of
geographic areas and situations. Six burned areas were treated
in California, Nevada, Washington and Oregon in 1969 (34).
Emergency measures included seeding 80,500 acres of burned area;
stabilization treatment of 232 miles of roads, trails, and fire-
lines; construction of one temporary debris basin; clearing
debris from and vegetating 5 miles of stream channel; fertilizing
13,861 acres of emergency seeding; reforesting 2,389 acres;
rodent control on 4,656 acres; seeding brush on 352 acres; fencing
4
7 miles and deferring grazing on 11,575 acres.
Following Hurricane Camille contracts were awarded to remove
obstructions and to restore the capacity of impaired channels.
In many situations the natural drainage pattern had been completely
obliterated. In total, 561 miles of debris removal, stabilization
and restructuring channel, was completed on 80 different streams
in Virginia. Other work included vegetating 3,300 acres of critical
sediment producing areas.
Emergency measures installed because of the 1969 California floods
and fires included seeding of 14,400 acres of watershed lands;
revegetating and stabilizing 1,855 acres of slumps and slides,
debris removal from 18 miles of clogged channels, stabilizing 4,400
feet of streambanks and installing 42 debris basins and check dams.
Emergency work is normally widely scattered throughout a disaster
area as it was following the flood caused by Hurricane Agnes.
Three hundred and seventy-four requests were received. By
August 30, 1973, 276 jobs were underway or completed at an average
cost of $8,450. TWO combined jobs cost more than $25,000 each.
Two
Over 40 percent of the emergency assistance measures costs less
than $2,500 each.
Major flooding on the Mississippi River and tributaries in the spring
of 1973, resulted in a supplemental appropriation of 20 million
dollars. Nine states suffered damage. Seven and three quarters
million acres were flooded and over 2 1/2 million acres of these were
cropland. Emergency measures included repair to badly damaged dams
and levees protecting farmland, debris removal from channels, repair
and reseeding sediment producing areas and conservation measures to
stop or retard gullying, landslides and sheet erosion on denuded areas.
Coordination arrangements are made with agencies responsible for
administering other emergency programs. These agencies include:
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Farmers
Home Administration, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Small Business
Administration and Federal Disaster Assistance Administration. Such
coordination avoids duplication of effort and insures a multiple
discipline approach to solving emergency problems.
13
2
.
Environmental Impacts
Emergency measures are installed to protect lives and property
immediately after the occurrence of a natural event causing sudden
impairment of a watershed. The major thrust of the program is to
minimize the environmental damages of the disaster on the watershed.
The post-disaster environment is in an unstable and damaged state.
The potential exists for additional catastrophic impact on an
impaired watershed should a future storm or flood occur. Emergency
watershed protection is designed to help alleviate the instability
and protect against this dangerous potential. Emergency measures
thus help to correct and prevent further adverse impacts on the
post-disaster environment.
The pre-disaster environmental condition is one in a continuous cycle
of change and recovery resulting from natural forces. The recovery
period is of an undetermined length and varies with different conditions.
Most emergency measures will help accelerate the recovery period.
See figure 1 on page 2.
Environmental impacts are discussed in the following sections. These
impacts are related to a wide variety of emergency measures that are
needed to provide relief from the different disasters. Only a few
of the potential environmental impacts are expected to occur with any
given emergency measure.
2a.
Environmental impacts resulting from establishment of vegetative
cover
Vegetative cover such as grass, shrubs and trees reduce erosion
on exposed land. Research by the Agricultural Research Sarvice and
numberous universities have demonstrated the effectiveness of
vegetative cover (2, 3, 14, 15 and 36). One research plot yisas
65 tons/acre per year on unprotected land while a nearby plot wii
forest cover eroded only 0.002 tons/acre per year (36). Other stui 5
indicate annual erosion rates of 100 and 190 tons/acre per year on
areas barren of vegetation (4, 12 and 13). The goal of establishing
vegetative cover is to reduce erosion rates to 3 to 5 tons per
acre per year.
Vegetative cover will reduce surface runoff from exposed areas.
The additional water retained on the land is available for plant
growth, groundwater recharge and direct evaporation into the
atmosphere. One test showed that bare exposed land had 30 percent
runoff while a nearby test plot with established vegetation
experienced only 1 percent runoff (36). However, this test may not
be typical of the various runoff situations throughout the country:
Frevert, Schwab, Edminister and Barnes (57) report that the establish-
ment of vegetative cover is the most important factor which influences
infiltration rates and the reduction of surface runoff. Tables and
graphs presented (57) in the Soil and Water Conservation Engineering
book summarize results of numerous research efforts related to runoff.
14
Vegetative cover reduces total sediment and the chemicals, minerals
and pathogens it carries. Sediment and its contained nutrients
tend to degrade water quality and are detrimental to fish and marine
life (1, 6, 8, 11, 20, 21 and 37). The reduction of erosion and
consequently sediment particles will improve the post-disaster
environmental condition brought about by the establishment of a vegetative
cover.
Reduction of soil erosion by vegetative cover contributes to
increased organic matter in soils (38 and 39). Soils protected
from excessive erosion will hold water and nutrients (40 and 41)
for future plant growth. Reduction of erosion will protect the
numerous living organisms contained in the root zone of soils (42).
The soil is an eco-system which is protected and perpetuated by
reducing soil erosion.
Establishment of vegetative cover will reduce wind erosion (43).
Soil particles picked up by wind contribute to degrading air
quality. Establishment of vegetative cover will reduce wind
erosion and wind borne soil particles.
Establishing a vigorous vegetative cover will provide food and cover
for wildlife where none existed. Multiple use of land is a desired
objective (44) as society can reap more than one harvest from a
given land use. Wherever plantings can be made to enhance wildlife
habitat then the land will be more productive. Vegetative cover
along and over streams (1 and 32) contributes to increased fish
habitat by supplying, detritus materials for food and shady cover
to regulate water temperature.
2b.
Environmental impacts resulting from installation of gully and log
road control structures
Sediment will be reduced by controlling advancing gullies.
gullies. One
research (17) estimates that active gullies contribute up to 400
tons/acre per year. Similar erosion rates are anticipated along
log roads and their drainage ditches (16). The goal of emergency
measures is to reduce erosion rates to 3 to 5 tons per acre
per year.
Log road stabilization consists of vegetative cover on exposed
banks, stabilization of drainage ditches and use of diversions to
route surface water away from road areas. Emergency log road
measures will stabilize threatened roads for use by emergency
rescue or fire fighting teams, reduce log road erosion, and reduce
potential of existing road drainages from gullying forces.
Land stabilized by installation of terraces will reduce velocity of
surface runoff waters to increase infiltration, reduce erosion, and
reduce losses of natural soil fertility by nutrients being carried
away in runoff water and eroded particles. With erosion and runoff
reduced then permanent vegetation can be established.
15
Wildlife habitat can be effectively improved by the use of
conservation practices in providing land stabilization. Wetland
areas and other natural wildlife lands can be managed to increase
the habitat stability (45).
2c.
Environmental impacts resulting from installation of streambank
stabilization by planting vegetative cover or use of mechanical
protection
Exposed streambanks contribute sediment directly into streams.
Sediment will cover spawning areas (1, 6, 11, 20 and 21 ) and also
increase turbidity trus interfering with light transmissability as
well as organism feeding (1 and 32). Use of vegetative cover
supplemented by mechanical protection such as rock riprap, gabions,
cribbing or piling will reduce the source of direct sedimentation
(1, 14, 19 and 32) and reduce the adverse impacts.
Remaining pockets of streambank wildlife habitat may be lowered in
quality by installation of mechanical streambank protection. This
may be caused by clearing banks for installation of rock riprap or
other protective covers. Establishment of vegetative cover increases
wildlife habitat potential of streambanks. Establishment of
vegetative cover restores habitat conditions in the post-disaster
environment where none existed. Vormally mechanical streambank
protection is used in short reaches around sharp curves or where
excessive stream gradient occurs. Most streamsank stabilization
utilizes vegetative plantings. Therefore a net gain is expected in
beneficial wildlife habitat.
Stream turbidity may temporarily increase during installation of
streambank stabilization measures (1). Occasional traversing of
stream channel by construction equipment may cause settled particles
to move downstream. Such temporary increase in turbidity will
adversely affect downstream fish habitat (1, 6, 11, 20, 21 and 32)
by depositing sediment in stream pools, covering spawning areas and
reducing the food chain. These adverse impacts may occur in the
post-disaster environmental condition where nature has already
degraded the fishery habitat. The increased turbidity created
during installation of the emergency measures is expected to be
minor when compared to increased turbidity created by a flood event
if it should occur before recovery of the post-disaster environment.
20.
Environmental impacts resulting from installation of channel debris
and sediment removal, floodwater diversions, open channel and
debris basins
Lives and property are safeguarded from the imminent threat of
flooding by the removal of flood debris, sediment and reinstatement
of channel flow capacity. Man can continue to use developed areas
for living, work or play.
16
Agricultural areas subjected to increased flooding in the post-
disaster environmental condition have reduced crop yields. For
the nation to produce the quantities of food and fiber required
by society additional lands would be needed to restore production.
Removing sediment and debris from channels that flood agricultural
lands will contribute tovard reducing man-over of opening and
farming additional agricultural lands, reduce the use of fertilizers
as new lands will not be needed, will save fuel as fewer acres are
used to produce commodities, and retain the existing wildlife
habitat of the lands which potentially would be converted to
agricultural lands. Individual farmers that are the victims of
the disaster may not have an alternative of bringing additional
land into production; however, the overall agricultural community
would be making the adjustments.
Removal of sediment and debris, open channel installation and
reinstating the channel flow capcity in areas affecting human
inhabitants will save lives as well as protect property. Water
backed up around residences creates the potential for mosquito and
rat breeding and the spreading of diseases (33). Urban drainage is
restricted, water supplies become contaminated, sanitary drainage
is plugged and untreated seage is dumped into receiving streams.
All of these adverse post-disaster impacts will be reduced or avoided
should another flood occur after the removal of sediment and debris
from clogged streams.
Clogged bridges, culverts and streams near roads may cause over-
topping and damage to the public roads. Removal of sediment and
debris and the resulting reestablishment of stream flow capacity
will prevent unnecessary highway detours with the resulting delay
in shipment of vital goods and services, increased costs to the
unfortunate disaster victims, and increased use of fuel to travel
detour routes.
Downstream sediment may be temporarily increased during debris removal
or other construction activities. Adverse impacts are minimized as
emergency watershed protection cleanout involves relatively short
stream reaches, brief construction periods, use of erosion and
sediment control construction techniques, and occurs in the post-
disaster environmental conditions which is characterized by
abnormally high sediment rates.
Stream temperature may be increased as the vegetative channel canopy
is removed (1 and 28). The increased water temperature has the
effect of reducing bio-activity. formally emergency work would not
involve removing streamside vegetation other than in access roads to
transport machinery to and from work areas. Adverse impacts are
minimized by concentrating efforts in areas adjacent to roads and
accessable areas. Frequently streamside vegetation has been removed
by the disaster event.
17
Downstream flooding may be increased as floodwater is conveyed
through cleared channels faster thus allowing fewer opportunities
for storage on the natural flood plain (1 and 32). The downstream
flooding might be increased relative to the post-disater environ-
mental condition. However, the relationship of upstream flooding
and downstream flooding would be essentially reinstated to the
pre-disaster environmental condition.
Flood plain land use change could be induced as people may have a
false security about being protected from future flooding (1).
This impact is expected to be minimal as emergency watershed protec-
tion measures are installed to remove clogged or restricted short
reaches rather than installing entire lengths of channel modification.
Flood plain and bottomland forests may be reduced as access routes
and channel clearing operations involve streamside vegetation ( 1 and
32). Again this impact is minimized as much streamside vegetation
had been previously removed or degraded by the disaster event.
Aesthetics of natural valleys may be altered. The disaster event
undoubtedly reduced vegetative cover, caused excessive erosion and
sedimentation, piled debris on flood plains and otherwise changed
the aesthetic value of natural areas.
2e. ,
Environmental impacts resulting from repairing dikes, dams and other
water control structures
Repairing of damaged dikes, dams, man-made and natural channels and
other water control structures will assure the orderly, safe
functioning of that unit. Imminent threat of failure and disastrous
loss of lives and property are prevented. Water resource structures
are usually constructed to protect populated areas. Thus their
immediate repair, if damaged, is needed to avoid contributing to
another disaster.
Occasionally construction areas for emergency measures may be cleared.
Such areas would be exposed to accelerated erosion and increased
sediment in downstream reaches. Increased sediment may impact down-
stream fish habitat (1, 6, 11, 20, 21 and 32). This impact is
minimized as it occurs in the already downgraded post-disaster
environmental condition.
Wildlife habitat value may be reduced in areas being repaired. Wild-
life use of construction areas would be temporarily delayed until
vegetation can once again be reestablished.
18
Although interdisciplinary planning is used for emergency measures
and precautions are used to minimize adverse impacts, we recognize
that the nature of emergency work and the use of construction
equipment may cause some inadvertent temporary adverse environmental
impacts.
2f.
Other environmental impacts of combined emergency watershed protection
measures
Resources such as construction equipment, fuel, materials, and man-
power are used. These resources could be employed in other priority
projects if not needed for emergency watershed protection. Overall,
society could expect a net reduction in use of equipment, fuel and
materials by installation of emergency measures as opposed to traffic
detours, development of new lands and moving out of post-disaster flood
prone areas.
Restores the rural human environment thereby reducing the tendency
or need of people to migrate into urban areas (34). Rural people
that migrate to urban centers often find they are untrained or
unable to seek employment. This tends to compound urban environmental
problems.
May reduce the initiative of local residents to develop permanent
solutions for the problem areas. It has been demonstrated that
damage can be effectively reduced by permanent protection measures
(46) such as those in the Upper Rock Creek, Maryland and Marsh Creek,
Pennsylvania Watersheds. Several million dollars of flood damages
were prevented in the Hurricane Agnes flood. Both of these are
PL 83-566 watershed protection and flood prevention projects, not
emergency floodwater protection measures.
Installation of emergency measures will provide temporary employment
in the disaster area until the normal economy is stabilized. Since
the numbers of people employed depends upon the amount of emergency
assistance provided, a finite estimate of employment cannot be
made (47) until after a disaster occurs. Other people in the disaster
area not directly employed to install emergency measures would
likewise benefit through related secondary activities.
In some instances, temporary increases in erosion (43), air and
water pollution. Air quality may be degraded by exhausts from
construction machinery, burning of debris and disposal of other
wastes. Except for some practices such as aerial seeding and
removing certain channel obstructions, even the most carefully
planned emergency work will impact the post-disaster environmental
condition. To the extent that the post-disaster environmental
condition recovery period is reduced, these impacts may be a net
beneficial effect on the environment.
19
2g.
Summary of favorable environmental effects
Reduce erosion up to 100 tons per acre per year on areas devoid of
vegetation.
Reduce storm water runoff on exposed lands.
Reduce downstream sedimentation from exposed streambanks, active
gullies and land devoid of vegetation.
Establish cover and food for wildlife in areas devoid of vegetation.
Safeguard lives and property from the imminent theat of flooding.
Prevent additional disastrous damage from failure of weakened dikes
and dams.
Assure continued production and utility of areas subjected to
increased flooding on the post-disaster environmental condition.
Prevent migration of agricultural, commercial and residence from
flood plains subject to increased flooding in the post-disaster
condition to flood free areas. The existing habitat of flood free
areas is preserved.
Prevent disease spreading and contamination of urban water supplies.
Reduce rerouting of traffic, saves fuel and prevents increased
costs and delays in providing goods and services to the disaster
victims.
2h. Summary of adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
Streambank wildlife habitat may be degraded when emergency channel
clearing, streambank stabilization, dikes or other similar measures
are installed.
Fish habitat both at the installation site and downstream may be
degraded by emergency channel clearing, dike construction, debris
basin installation, and other similar measures.
Water quality may be temporarily degraded by increasing turbidity
resulting from installation of emergency measures and increasing
water temperature resulting from the removal of channel canopy.
Construction areas and access routes may be cleared thus increasing
potential erosion until vegetation can be reestablished.
Air quality may be degraded by burning of debris and other wastes
where local ordinances permit.
Local initiative to seek permanent solutions may be reduced by the
installation of emergency watershed protection measures.
20
In some cases, removal of sediment and debris from clogged streams nay
cause increased flooding in reaches immediately downstream from the work.
Flood plain land use changes may be induced and loss of bottomland
forest may occur due to construction and access routes causing
possible adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat.
3. Relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment
and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity
Man depends upon intensively managed, highly productive land for
his food supply, and upon developed land for living, work and play.
Much land is used so intensively that it would be unstable in the
natural environment without man's management inputs. Without
conservation treatment, pest control and nroper management, developed
land would be subject to severe environmental changes (43).
Natural disasters such as floods, fires, landslides or other sudden
impairment of a watershed can leave the land devoid of vegetation
and exposed to increased and continuing erosion and sedimentation.
The purpose and direction of the emergency watershed protection effort
is to protect man and his works and to be in harmony with the environ-
ment. The intended results are maintaining soil in place and thus
sustaining long-term productivity (23, 40 and 48).
Whenever developed land is damaged by a natural disaster, emergency
protection is essential to prevent damage which would limit usefulness
of the land for future generations. Developed property subject to
increased flood risk could be abandoned and left for nature to heal
but then agricultural production and other intensive land uses would
be shifted to land resources which may be physically less suitable
for development. Ultimately, more land resources would be needed to
supply food and living area than is now being used. The invasion
into the nation's fixed land resource would be accelerated. Emer-
gency measures help preserve the stability and the high production
potential of land for succeeding generations. Thus the emergency
watershed protection program assists in maintaining land in its
present state of development and preserving natural areas.
A
Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources in maintaining
resource base for future uses
Land resources dedicated to debris basins, diversions, grade control
structures and water control structures require land for installation
and operation which is irreversibly committed.
The use of resources for installing emergency measures such as
construction equipment, fuel, manpower and materials is irretrievable.
It is believed that the investment in irreversible and irretrievable
resources is smaller in carrying out the emergency watershed
protection than it would be to allow the natural recovery process to
21
occur on developed areas. Rerouting of traffic and the opening
of additional lands for agricultural production, residential and
commercial use would require expenditure of large sums of
irretrievable resources.
5.
Alternatives
5a. No Program
No emergency watershed protection is an alternative to the existing
program. Whenever a sudden impairment of a watershed occurs, the
Secretary of Agriculture would be unable to provide assistance for
the safeguarding of lives and property.
The no program alternative would leave the imminent threat of future
flooding uncorrected. Future storms would cause increased flood
runoff (23, 27, 35 and 45), increased erosion and sedimentation
(3, 4, 5, 17, 23 and 46) and the unfortunate disaster victims would
be subjected to more frequent flooding (14). Intensive use of flood
plain areas would be reduced and rural residents would accelerate
migration toward urban areas (33, 45, 47 and 50). The impaired
watershed condition would be untreated and subject to the slower
natural recovery process.
Wildlife habitat would be of reduced value on fire burned areas and
other areas stripped of vegetation by floods, landslides, and other
disasters. Raw streambanks exposed by the forces of erosion will not
support wildlife until vegetation can be reestablished (1 and 32).
Fish habitat in the impaired watershed and in downstream reaches will
be of reduced value. Accelerated erosion contributes to downstream
sedimentation and turbidity which degrades fish habitat (1, 6, 11,
21, 26, 27, 39 and 54). Also the increased sediment loads carries
additional nutrients into the stream further degrading downstream
reaches (7, 8, 9 and 36) and lakes and reservoirs (10 and 39).
Adverse environmental impacts caused by installation of emergency
measures would be avoided. Temporary increase of stream sedimentation
due to movement of construction equipment; clearing of access routes,
debris disposal areas and construction areas; and commitment of fuel,
manpower and other valuable resources would be avoided.
If the no emergency program were pursued then the effective cost
would be transferred from federal spending to increased costs for
local governments and victims of the disaster. Costs to society
would undoubtedly be great with no emergency watershed protection
program, since the natural recovery period may be slow and impaired
watershed residents would suffer economic losses for several years.
22
5b. Complete watershed protection and flood prevention program
An alternative emergency watershed protection program would be to
install sufficient land treatment measures to control excessive
erosion and permanent structural measures to control flooding.
The use of temporary emergency measures such as sediment and debris
removal from obstructed streams and repair of water resource struc-
tures would not be a part of this alternative program. Permanent
structures would be floodwater retarding structures, multiple
purpose dams, open channels and grade control structures. A
complete watershed protection and flood prevention program would be
similar to a program now being administered by the Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and authorized by Public
Law 566, 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666, as amended.
A complete watershed protection and flood prevention emergency
program will control excessive erosion; reduce sediment by reducing
flood flows to control sediment producing forces by storage of
sediment in dams and stabilization of sediment producing streambanks;
and prevent flooding of property and protection of lives. Fish and
wildlife habitat would be improved as sediment is reduced in streams
(1, 53, 54 and 55), structural measures would be selected to include
fish and wildlife development purposes and conservation measures
would be used to improve habitat. An interdisciplinary planning
approach would be utilized to identify and minimize adverse impacts
which might be caused by structural measure installation. Long-
term permanent solution to water resource problems would be made
rather than expedient solutions to the immediate flooding and erosion
problems.
This alternative would avoid most of the adverse environmental impacts
of the emergency watershed protection program. However, immediate
alleviation of flood hazards would be delayed as the structural
measures would require additional time for planning and installation.
Overall, the net effect would be an increase in beneficial impacts.
A reasonable assessment of installation costs of permanent type
emergency watershed protection measures is difficult. Presumably,
the permanent structures would cost more than the presently used
emergency watershed measures. This would result in either increasing
the cost of providing emergency watershed protection or reducing
the areas adequately protected.
5c. Land use changes and flood plain management measures
An alternative emergency watershed protection program could be the
use of flood plain zoning, flood insurance, flood plain studies to
delineate problem areas, public purchase of areas subject to flooding,
flood proofing, moving of endangered buildings and land treatment
measures (49). A suitable combination of measures could be grouped
for any given disaster area. Flood plain zoning (50) includes legal
control of land use and development. Presumably, flood plain zoning
would be for uses that are compatible with its flooding nature or
limit development areas which will not adversely affect adjacent
landowners. Zoning may affect the type, design and use of building
23
location in a flood plain. Flood insurance (51) provides flood plain
inhabitants an opportunity to take an insurance policy on risks
involved in flooding. Flood plain studies are an effective
management tool to determine the potential flooding areas.
Individuals and businesses can thus determine the risk of further
development in flood prone areas. Government agencies (52) can
also assess flood risk when implementing on-going and newly
authorized programs. Public purchase of flood prone areas involves
outright purchase or exchange of title from non-government owners
to public agencies. The government would then manage flood plains
compatible with nature. Most flood plains would be used as natural
areas, wildlife habitat, parks and open space. Flood proofing of
existing buildings may be used to protect developments. Flood
proofing is accomplished by diking individual buildings, raising
or barricading doors and windows to keep damaging floorwaters out.
The physical moving of habitable buildings from flood prone areas
to flood free areas may also be used.
Land treatment measures would be vegetative plantings of trees,
shrubs and grass on barren areas caused by fire, flood or other
sudden impairment. Diversion of surface waters around critically
eroding areas would also be a land treatment measure. Land treat-
ment alternatives would be effective in reducing erosion and surface
runoff.
Land use changes and flood plain management would have severe human
environmental impacts. Developed areas would be restricted from
future growth thus imposing economic hardship on the existing
residents. Many flood plain residents would be required to relocate
in areas not prone to flooding. Agricultural uses would be diverted
to other lands which may be more susceptible to erosion. Thus
increased resources of capital, manpower, fuel and equipment may
need to be committed to produce the equivalent amount of food and
fiber. Remaining residents would be subject to continued frequent
flooding. Many buildings would be of reduced usefulness as dikes
or water tight seals would limit opening and sizes of entrances.
This alternative would be both beneficial to some fish and wildlife
habitat and adversely impact others. Streams would not be cleared
or worked on thus not further adversely affecting fish habitat in
post-disaster environmental condition. Fish and wildlife habitat
which is degraded by the unstabilized streambank, sediment and debris
deposits would continue to be degraded. Downstream fish habitat
being adversely impacted by sediment and turbidity would continue to
suffer. Potential loss of life would not be safeguarded as habitable
buildings and roads may continue to be washed out.
Clearing of construction areas will not be done and those impacts
would also be avoided. Flood plain wildlife habitat would increase
as residents and farmers are relocated into upland and other flood
free areas. Some upland habitat would undoubtedly be lost as flood
plain residents are relocated. The flood plain areas purchased
by government agencies would be managed for fish and wildlife use
and thus would tend to increase population levels of individual
24
species. Public use of flood plain areas for hunting, fishing
or recreation would be increased as public agencies so permit.
Cost of providing land use changes and flood plain management
aspects would increase several times the amount used for the
existing emergency watershed protection program. Adoption of
land use changes and flood plain management would require adoption
of a whole new set of social values as well as authorizations.
50.
Increased funding of the existing program
The existing emergency watershed protection program could be
expanded to adequately protect all watersheds suffering a sudden
impairment resulting in endangering lives and property. Funding
could be made at either some arbitrary higher level of several
million dollars or establishment of a deficit spending authority.
In either case, sufficient emergency watershed protection funds
would be available to provide immediate and adequate watershed
protection.
This alternative of expanded funding would eliminate or reduce the
need to seek supplemental appropriations each time a large scale
disaster occurs. Delays in implementing emergency measures some-
times reduce the effectiveness, increase the cost of the measures
and cause disaster victims to be vulnerable to recurring floods
until the emergency measures can be installed.
Expanded funding of the existing program would increase the net
beneficial impacts as the program would operate on a larger scale.
Congressional oversight of the emergency watershed protection program
would be reduced. The Secretary of Agriculture would have sufficient
emergency funds to implement the program immediately.
Relative cost of such an expanded emergency watershed protection
program would undoubtedly increase. The increased funding could
expand commitments by a factor of several times.
5e.
Existing emergency watershed protection program without sediment and
debris removal, streambank stabilization and open channel measures
An alternative emergency watershed protection program could consist
of emergency vegetative and structural measures such as used in the
existing program except that debris and sediment removal, stream-
bank stabilization and open channel measures would not be permitted.
This alternative would reduce excessive erosion on areas devoid of
vegetation by fires, floods or other sudden impairment of a
watershed.
25
Continual sediment protection from exposed streambanks would not
be reduced and the resulting degrading of downstream habitat
would not be stopped.
Safeguarding of lives and property would not be provided as streams,
bridges or culverts plugged with sediment and debris would not be
cleaned out. Flood victims would continue to live with increased
flooding of their property and increased threat to loss of life.
Rerouting of traffic on flooded highways would delay transportation
and streams clogged with sediment and debris will eventually seek a
new water course which may consume developed property. Some victims
of increased flooding in the post-disaster environmental condition
will seek new residences in flood free areas. Wildlife habitat in
flood free areas will be encroached as flood free lands will be used
more intensively for homes, farm enterprises and places of business,
This alternative will avoid the adverse impacts of disturbing reaches
of stream, increased downstream turbidity and sedimentation during
construction, increased downstream flooding due to more efficient
conveyance of floodwaters, possible drainage of wet areas adjacent
to clogged streams and clearing existing vegetative cover from
construction areas. These adverse impacts avoided are of reduced
value as the emergency measures are installed in the post-disaster
environmental condition where habit values have already been degraded
by natural forces and are in the process of recovery.
Cost of this alternative is expected to increase from the existing
emergency watershed protection program. Vegetative and other
structural measures would be the same but society would have greatly
increased costs of reduced use of developed flood plains and
relocation costs to flood free areas.
6.
Consultation with appropriate federal agencies and review by state
and local agencies and public involvement
Coordination of emergency watershed protection measures is carried
out with the appropriate state agency as delegated by the Governor.
Other federal agencies with similar or complementary emergency
programs are also consulted. These agencies are Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, Farmers Home Administration,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Small Business Administration and
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration. Coordination (56) is
carried out to eliminate duplication and to insure that all aspects
of emergency work are completed.
26
The U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries, state fish and game agencies,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Service and
other interested agencies and organizations are consulted and
invited to participate in implementing emergency work.
As a condition of providing funds for emergency work, local
sponsoring organizations acquire all land rights and permits.
Their consultation and participation are a vital ingredient of
the emergency watershed protection program.
The draft environmental statement is being sent to the federal
agencies mentioned in the summary sheet. Information copies are
being sent to SCS state conservationists so that they may forward
the draft environmental impact statement to the appropriate state
agencies. Draft environmental impact statement information copies
are being furnished to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife
Federation and ilational Audubon Society. A copy will be furnished
to other individuals, groups or agencies upon request.
Kenneth Gaut
APPROVED BY:
Date: MAR 20 1974
E
Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator
Soil Conservation Service
List of Appendices
Appendix A - List of References
Appendix B - Watersheds vemorandum-124, Revision 1, dated July 24, 1973
Appendix C - Letters of comment received on the draft environmental
statement
APPENDIX A
27
LIST OF REFERENCES
1.
.
A. D. Little, Inc., Report on Channel Hodification, Volume I
to Council on Environmental Quality, arch 1973.
2.
Rice, R. M.; Crouse, R. P.; Corbett, E. S. - Emegency Heasures
to Control Erosion After A Fire on the San Dimas Experimental
Forest, Proceedings of the Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation
Conference, 1963, USDA.
3. Ursic, S. J.; Denny, F. E.; Sediment Yields From Small Water-
Sheds Under Various Land Uses and Forest Covers, Proceedings
of the Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, 1953, USDA.
4.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Chapter V - Sediment Control
Methods Introduction and Watershed Area, Hydraulics Division,
March 1969.
5. Roehl, J. W.; Erosion and Its Control on Agricultural Lands,
Proceedings of the Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation
Conference, 1963, USDA.
6.
.
Herbert, D. W.; iverkens, J. C.; The Effect of Suspended Mineral
Solids on the survival of Trout, 1961.
7.
Kuntz, L. T.; Fate of Applied Nutrients in Soils, 1970.
8. Frink, C. R.; Plant Nutrients and Water Quality, 1971.
9.
Viets, F. G.; Water Quality in Relation to Farm Use of Fertilizer,
1971.
10. Sawyer, C. N.; Basic Concepts of Eutrophication, Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation 38, 1966.
11. Wallen, E. I.; The Direct Effect of Turbidity on Fishes, 1951.
12. Vice, R. B.; Guy, H. P.; Ferguson, G. E. - Sediment Movement in
an Area of Surban Highway Construction, Scott Run Basin, Fairfax
County, Va., 1961-1964 - Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1591-E.
13. Guy, H. P. ; Sediment Problem in Urban Areas, Geological Survey
Circular 601-E.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Implementation, EPA-R2-72-015,
August 1972.
15. Kellogg, C. E.; We Seek, We Learn, USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1957
Appendix A
28
16.
Fredricksen, R.L.; Erosion and Sedimentation Following Road
Construction and Timber Harvest on Unstable Soil in Three
Small Western Oregon Watersheds, Forest Service Research
Paper PNW-104, 1970.
17.
Miller, C.R.; Woodburn; Russell; and Turner, H.R.; Upland
Gully Sediment Production, In Symposium of Bari, International,
Assoc. Sc. Hydrol. Pub. 59, 1962.
18.
Greeson, P.E.; Lake Eutrophication-A llatural Process, Water
Resource Bulletin 5:16-30, 1969.
19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Measures for the Restoration
and Enhancement of Quality of Freshwater Lakes, EPA-430/9-73-005,
1973.
20.
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission; International Joint
Air and Water Pollution Seminar - 9:151-168, 1965.
21.
9
.
Buck, H.D.; Effects of Turbidity on Fish and Fishing Transaction
North American Wildlife Conference 21:429-61, 1956.
0
22. Frevert, R. K.; Schwab, 6.0.; Edminster, T.W.; and Barnes, K.K.;
Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1955.
23.
Bennett, H.H.; Soil Conservation, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1939.
24. Francis, C.J.; How to Control A Gully, Farmers Bulletin 2171, Soil
Conservation Service, USDA, 1961.
25.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration;
Use of Riprap for Bank Protection, Hydraulic Engineering
Circular 11, June 1967.
26.
State of California, Department of Public Works; Bank and Shore
Protection in California Highway Practice, November 1970.
27. Likens, G. E.; Effects of Deforestation on Water Quality,
Interdisciplinary Aspects of Watershed Management Published
by American Society of Civil Engineers, August 1970.
28.
Brown, G.W.; Effects of Forest Management on Stream Temperature,
Interdisciplinary Aspects of Watershed Management Published by
American Society of Civil Engineers, August 1970.
29. Slobodkin, L.B.; Ecological Energy Relationships at the Population
Level, W.E. Hazen, edition, 1964.
30. Steel, N.; Autumn at White Clay Creek; New Life for an Old Stream,
Frontiers 37 (1); 2-7, 1972.
Appendix A
29
31.
Silberberger, L.F.; Streambank Stabilization, Agricultural
Engineering, Vol. 40, No. 4, 1959.
32.
U.S. National Water Commission; Water Policies for the Future,
U.S. Government Printing Office, June, 1973.
33.
McPhail, P.; Drying Up the Mississippi Mud, Clarksdale Press
Register, Clarksdale, Mississippi, 1973.
34.
U.S. President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty;
"The People Left Behind," 1967.
35.
USDA Budget Documentation, Fiscal Years 1969-1972.
36.
World Book Encylopedia.
37.
Control of Agriculture-Related Poluttion - A report to the President
submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.; January 1969.
38.
Broadbent, F.E.; Organic Matter, USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1957.
39.
Bartholomew, W.V.; Maintaining Organic Matter, USDA, Yearbook of
Agriculture, 1957.
40. Blakely, B.D.; Coyle, J.J.; and Steel, J.G.; Erosion on Cultivated
Land, USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1957.
41. Viets, F.G.; and Hanway, J.J.; How to Determine Nutrient Needs,
USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1957.
42. Clark, F.E. ; Living Organisms in the Soil, USDA, Yearbook of
Agriculture, 1957.
43. Chepil, W. S.; Erosion of soil by Wind, USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture,
1957.
44. Sieker, J.H.; Planning for the Recreational Use of Water; A Plea,
USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1955.
45. Allan, P.F.; Anderson, W.L.; More Wildlife from our Marshes and
Wetlands, USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1955.
9
46.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; "When
Hurricane Agnes Reigned and Rained, "Soil Conservation Service,
page 28, September 1972.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; "Method
for Estimating Employment Resulting from Project Installation and
Activities." Western Regional Technical Service Center, Technical
Note. Watersheds - PO-4. June 27, 1972.
47.
-
Appendix A
30
48. Brown, C.B.; "Effects of soil Conservation," A reprint from
Trask's Applied Sedimentation, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1950.
49.
.
U.S. National Water Commission; Water Policies for the Future,
U. S. Government Printing Office, pp 149-161 inclusive "Programs
for Reducing Flood Losses," June 1973.
50.
Water Resource Council; Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce
Flood Losses, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
51.
Public Law 90-448, National Flood Insurance Administration of
Federal Insurance Administration, U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
52.
Executive Order No. 11296, Federal Register 31 (155); 10663-10664,
August 11, 1964.
53. Patrick, R.; A Proposed Biological measure of Stream Conditions
Based on a Survey of Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County, Penna.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
101:277-341, 1949.
54.
Troutman, M.B.; The Effects of Man-ilade Modifications on The Fish
In Lost and Gordon Creeks, Ohio, between 1887 and 1938; Ohio
Journal of Science, 39, 1939.
55. Belusz, L.; Rotenone Sampling of Blackwater River - Johnson
County; Missouri Department of Conservation, September 2, 1970.
56.
Office of Emergency Preparedness (now Federal Disaster Assistance
Administration); Disaster Preparedness, U.S. Government Printing
Stock No. 4102-006, January 1972.
57. Frevert, R. K.; Schwab, G.0.; Edminister, T.W.; Barnes, K.K.;
Soil and Water Conservation Engineering; John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York and Chapman and Hall, Ltd., London; 1955.
Appendix B
WS-124 (Rev. 1)
NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
ashington, D. C. 20250
July 24, 1973
ATERSHEDS MEMORANDUM-124 (Rev. 1)
rom:
Kenneth E. Grant
Administrator
e:
Emergency Watershed Protection Authorized by Section 216,
Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950
his memorandum states Soil Conservation Service (SCS) policy and provides
uidelines for administering Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP). Water-
sheds Memorandum-124, dated November 9, 1972, is canceled.
Luthorization
Emergency watershed protection is authorized by Section 7 of the Flood
Control Act approved June 28, 1938, as amended by Section 15 of the Flood
Jontrol Act approved December 22, 1944, as amended by Section 216 of the
Flood Control Act of 1950, Public Law 81-516 (33 USC 701b-1). The complete
text of the current authority is:
"The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized in his
discretion to undertake such emergency measures for runoff
retardation and soil-erosion prevention as may be needed to
safeguard lives and property from floods and the products of
erosion on any watershed whenever fire or any other natural
element or force has caused a sudden impairment of that water-
shed: Provided, that not to exceed $300,000 out of any funds
heretofore or hereafter appropriated for the prosecution by the
Secretary of Agriculture of works of improvement or measures
for run-off and water-flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention
on watersheds may be expended during any one fiscal year for
such emergency measures."
Supplemental appropriations have sometimes been approved for large-scale
emergencies to supplement the $300,000.
Conditions Essential to Furnishing Aid
A. An emergency exists because a watershed is suddenly impaired by flood,
fire, wind, earthquake, or other natural cause and consequently lives and
property are endangered by floodwater, erosion, or sediment discharge. The
emergency area need not be declared a national disaster area to be eligible
for emergency watershed protection. Emergency watershed protection is
applicable to small-scale, localized disasters as well as to large-scale
disasters. Emergency watershed protection funds are not to be used to perform
normal operation and maintenance.
STC
Appendix B
(Rev. 1)
e sponsoring organization agrees to its responsibilities as set forth
S memorandum.
rangements are made to coordinate work with other emergency programs
ing those administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
e, Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Small
SS Administration, and Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA).
:oordination is to be extensive enough to avoid duplication of assistance
ly include specific agreements on the work each agency is to do. During
cers, USDA agencies will respond to FDAA, wlich has overall responsibility.
A transfers this responsibility to the Federal Regional Council during
ecovery period, USDA agencies will be responsible to the council. USDA
tions will be coordinated through the USDA state and county emergency
ttees.
nformation on federal emergency projects, consult the regional office of
(see Attachment I for a list of addresses and the areas served by each).
O
ble Measures
ency measures are those taken to protect lives and property from flooding
he products of flooding, erosion, or sediment. These measures include
such as:
establishing vegetative cover such as grass, shrubs, or trees
nuded land; stabilizing eroded banks using structural and/or vegetative
; removing debris; opening watercourses where flow is dangerously
icted; constructing protective diversions, dikes, or jetties; stabilizing
: with rip-rap, cribbing, or piling; using land stabilization measures
as terraces; repairing dikes, dams, or other water control structuros; and
ructing emergency road stabilization measures such as water bars. F:
ong-life measures such as floodwater-retarding structures, channel cons.
booms, debris basins, and grade stabilization structures may be installed
nergency measures if they are the most feasible way to obtain emergency
ection. It should be understood that emergency watershed protection is work
to safeguard lives and property in emergency situations and not to solve
cshed problems that existed prior to the natural disaster.
ral Administration
nistration of Emergency Watershed Protection has been delegated to the Soil
ervation Service, which is to provide overall administrative direction and
ance. Program responsibility has been assigned to the Deputy Administrator
Water Resources.. The Watershed Operations Division is to provide staff
ership.
The Administrator will allot funds to the state conservationists
to the directors of the regional technical service centers (RTSC). State
ervationists are to administer the program within their respective states.
directors are to provide technical assistance and coordinate emergency
'ations to insure a consistent and efficient program. Funds are to be trans-
'ed by SCS to the Forest Service (FS) at the Washington level for work to be
alled by the Forest Service or its cooperators.
D
Appendix B
WS-124 (Rev. 1)
3
Participation by Others
A.
Forest Service
The Forest Service has the responsibility to administer, under the general
program criteria and procedures established by SCS, the forestry aspects of
emergency watershed protection on the National Forest System and rangelands
within national forest boundaries, on adjacent range lands that are administered
under formal agreement, and on other forest lands.
If such lands are involved, the emergency work is to be done by SCS and/or
FS in the quickest and most economical manner. The extent and urgency of going
workload, expertise, availability of personnel and other resources, and other
pertinent factors are to be considered in determining which agency will carry
out the work. The Forest Service in carrying out these responsibilities works
cooperatively with scs and other federal, state, or local government agencies.
The Forest Service carries out emergency work with its own personnel and equip-
ment or through agreements with state or local agencies or individuals. Details
on Forest Service operations are contained in FS Manual 3540.
B.
State and Local
Emergency work on nonfederal land is to be sponsored by a local or state
organization, such as a conservation district or a county, town, or state agency.
As a condition to receiving assistance, the sponsoring organization is to have
au thority, is to agree to provide needed land rights, water rights, and permits
and to accept responsibility for operation and maintenance, if required, all
without cost to the emergency watershed protection funds.
The state environmental, natural resource, fish and game, and other agencies
should participate in planning and coordinating emergency work.
An entity of state government such as the conservation district, town or
county government, or state agency should assist in selecting the priorities
of eligible projects.
If operation and maintenance is required in order for an emergency measure to
accomplish its intended purpose or to insure that it will not itself become
hazardous, the sponsors must agree in writing to accept all responsibility for
operation and maintenance. The federal land-managing agency is to assume land
rights and operation and maintenance responsibilities for emergency protection
measures installed on federal land.
Appendix B
.24 (Rev. 1)
gram Administration
State Guidelines
nin the scope of this memorandum, state conservationists are to assign
ponsibilities and develop procedures for administering emergency work in
ir respective states.
Investigations and Fund Request
rgency situations resulting from a sudden impairment of a watershed due to
ural causes should be investigated immediately to determine if emergency
jershed protection, as defined by this memorandum, is justified. The state
nservationist is to notify the Administrator as soon as possible if emergency
jershed protection appears applicable. If the investigation justifies
ergency watershed protection as defined in this memorandum, the state conser-
tionist is to submit a report to the Administrator and request funds. If
ieral land is involved, the report is to be signed by the field representatives
the land-managing agencies. The report is to include:
Identification of members of the investigating team and the organizations
represented.
Identification and location of watershed.
Cause and date of watershed impairment (fire, earthquake, tornado, etc.).
O
Map showing:
a.
Land ownership or control, e.g., national forest, Bureau of
Land Management, private.
b.
Area damaged and severity of damage.
C.
Location and type of potential damage that could be prevented
or alleviated by emergency treatment.
d. Area to receive emergency treatment and measure(s) proposed.
.
Description of potential damages from flooding and the products of erosion
including:
a.
Kind of health hazards anticipated and number of people
concerned.
b.
Type and ownership (private, public, or quasi-public) of
property endangered, estimated value at time of investigation,
and estimated value of damages to be avoided by installing
emergency measures.
D
Appendix B
WS-124 (Rev. 1)
5
6.
Estimated kind, quantity, and cost of emergency measures recommended and
dates for starting and completing installation in order to be more
effective.
7. Description of the environmental impact expected from installation of the
recommended measures. Include a summary of any comments obtained from
other agencies having special expertise if consulted during investigation.
8. Identification of potential sponsors.
9. Extent of ability and willingness of sponsors, concerned individuals,
local groups, and state and local governmental units to participate in the
installation of the emergency measures.
10.
Show type
A list of other federal and state programs that are involved.
and extent of involvement of each.
ll.
A statement that FDAA has been consulted and that the assistance recom-
mended in the report is being coordinated with other emergency assistance.
12.
The amount of emergency funds recommended for approval.
13. Table (See Attachment 2).
14.
Additional maps, tables, charts, or photographs, if necessary.
15.
The anticipated need for temporary authority modifications such as for
purchasing and contracting, for personnel needs, and for travel required
to efficiently accomplish the planned emergency work. Include adequate
justification so modifications can be considered if funds are approved.
This report is to be concise but adequate to support emergency action. It is
realized that usually only general information is available.
The scope and detail of the report should vary with the scope of the emergency.
0. Environment
Environmental aspects of emergency work are to be given careful consideration.
Adverse effects on the environment are to be avoided and favorable effects
encouraged to the maximum extent practicable. Stream work is to be localized
to critical areas.. Entire reaches are not usually to be reconstructed. Streams
are not to be unnecessarily straightened or widened. Meanders are to be retained.
Excisting vegetation and other natural features are to be preserved whenever
possible. To the maximum extent practicable, measures and designs should be
used that have fish and wildlife value, bring favorable scenic results, or
Appendix B
4 (Rev. 1)
wise add to the quality of the environment. Construction techniques
.d be used that minimize erosion and sedimentation.
lashington Office will prepare a program environmental statement, in
iance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
'ing all EWP work. The Administrator will notify the chairman of CEQ by
:r when emergency work is to be undertaken. This notification will become
plement to the environmental impact statement.
: conservationists are to notify the regional offices of the Bureau of Sport
ries and Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the state fish
jame and other appropriate agencies of anticipated emergency watershed
ction and invite their assistance in implementing the emergency work. Need
arly action will be stressed to these agencies and their cooperation obtained
von as possible. Telephone contacts are acceptable but are to be followed
written announcement and request for assistance. If possible, a formal
is to be obtained from each agency.
special expertise needed such as on archeological or historical matters
be solicited from the appropriate agencies or groups. Environmental and
· considerations are to be integrated into emergency work using the inter-
plinary planning approach.
echnical Procedures, Clearances, and Approvals
rical procedures and requirements are to be developed and coordinated through
TSC's. Existing job approval authorities are to remain in force unless
ied in the usual manner. Special rush clearances can be made by telephone,
lan
in should be used to expedite and coordinate emergency operations. The plan
d include information such as identification and location of individual
:cts, estimated costs, priorities, sponsors, determination as to who is to do
fork, and any other information needed to efficiently accomplish emergency
shed protection.
and Rights
rights must be acquired as provided in Part 2, Section 2000, Administrative
.ces Handbook (ASH). A certification that all necessary land rights have
obtained must be made on Form SCS-AS-78 (see 2204.0252, ASH).
rocurement
usually does emergency work by contract, equipment rental, and/or SCS-employed
.. Sometimes emergency work may be done by the sponsors. Procurement for
iency work is to be consistent with current SCS policy, Wage rates should be
sted as soon as the needs can be anticipated.
$
Appendix B
WS-124 (Rev. 1)
7
H. Agreements
When required, relocation agreements and project agreements are to be prepared
as set forth in Section 2000, ASH.
A project agreement is required if the sponsors are to perform the work or
to cost share in work to be performed by SCS.
I.
Review and Spot Checking
Emergency field operations are to be reviewed periodically by the state office
staff to determine compliance with policy and program effectiveness. These
reviews are to include spot checking of individual measures if discrepancies
are found. Corrective measures are to be taken and adjustments made to avoid
similar problems on subsequent work.
J. Reports
The state conservationist is to maintain a log of emergency work (see attach-
ment 3) and submit monthly reports consisting of a copy of the log and a
narrative describing any unusual reportable situations to the Administrator with
a copy to the director of the RTSC. The final monthly report is to summarize
the entire emergency operation describing unusual situations that need documenting
or that might provide useful information for future emergency operations.
kemut Etant
Kenneth E. Grant
Administrator
3 Attachments
Appendix B
WS-124 (Rev. 1)
Attachment i
FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION, REGIONAL OFFICES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Region 1 - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
JFK Federal Building
Room 2003-E
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Region 2 - New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
:
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
26 Federal Plaza
Room 1349
New York, New York 10007
Region 3
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and
the District of Columbia
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
2 Penn Center Plaza, Suite 915
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Region 4
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Continental Insurance Building, Suite 750
1375 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
Region 5
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
300 S. Wacker Drive, Room 520
Chicago, Illinois 60606
1
Appendix B
-124 (Rev. 1)
- Attachment 1 (cont.)
D
.
ion 6 - Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas
-
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Building
1100 Commerce Street, Room 13028
Dallas, Texas 75202
ion 7
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Trader National Bank Building
1125 Grand Avenue, Room 1500
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
ion 8
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Building 67, Room 370
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
zion 9 - California, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
120 Montgomery
San Francisco, California 94104
zion 10 - Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho
Regional Director
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Arcade Building, Room M-16
1319 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
D
Appendix B
WS-124 (Rev. 1)
Attachment 2
SUMMARY OF EMERGENCY MEASURES RECOMMENDED
State:
Watershed Name:
Date:
Measures
and
agency identification
Cost of
measures
Unit
Quantity
Unit cost
Section
216
Source of funds
Other federal Nonfederal
(name) (name)
NONFEDERAL LAND
SCS
FS
Subtotal
FEDERAL LAND
SCS
FS
Subtotal
TOTAL SCS
TOTAL FS
Appendix B
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
WS-124 (Rev. 1)
Attachment 3
16 PROJECT LOG
repared by:
Sheet l of
Date
roject name & location received
Project
approval
date
Cost
estimate
Type contract Date Date Initial
Formal | Purchase invitation contract contract complet.
order issued
award
price date
Final
cost
Type of Work
Remarks
Appendix C
Letters of Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Statement
(Letters received will be attached to the final environmental
statement)
1
1
.