1 DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNFICIANT IMPACT

POLICY GUIDANCE LETTER (PGL) – PROCESS FOR REQUESTING A

VARIANCE FROM VEGETATION STANDARDS FOR LEVEES AND

FLOODWALLS

Purpose and Need

The purpose of this policy guidance letter is to revise the process for requesting variances from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) vegetation standards for levee systems. These revisions will create a more centralized, consistent and clear process for requesting variances. In 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) built upon the activities of its Rehabilitation and Inspection Program to form its Levee Safety Progr am (LSP) with the mission to assess the integrity and viability of levees and reco mmend courses of action to make sure that levee systems do not present unacceptable risks to the public, property and environment. USACE subsequently launched a major effort to review and revise policies and procedures associated with lev ees. The revised process aligns with the LSP goals that make public safety a top priority and assures application of

consistent and well-doc umented approaches.

Background

An environmental assessment is being prepared to as sist USACE in planning and decision making with regards to eval uating the variance process. This

document discusses the factors consi dered by USACE during the decisionmaking process.

Section 202(g) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 directed the Secretary of the Army to review and revise, in cooperation with interested stakeholders, current policy guidelines on vegetation management for levees in order to address variations in natural resource needs. Two goals of Section 202(g) were “to provide a coher ent and coordinated policy for vegetation management for levees” and “address regional variations in levee management and resource needs.” The resulting policy is reflected in Engineer Regulation (ER) 500-1-1, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, Civil Emergency Management Program , Section 5-22. ER 500-1-1, Section 5-22, provides an opportunity for local sponsor s to apply for a variance from vegetation

standards for levees active in the US ACE Rehabilitation and Inspection Program

under the authorities of Pub lic Law 84-99. The USAC E standards for vegetation management are contained in Engineer Te chnical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-571, Guidelines for Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appur tenant Structures. Procedures and considerations for granting variances ar e contained in Engine er Pamphlet (EP) 500-1-1, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, Civil2 Emergency Management Program – Procedures, Chapter 5. The revision to the variance proce ss aligns with the following agency-wide approaches:

 Conducting broader flood risk management planning

 Applying policy and procedures consistently

 Addressing levees on a systems basis

 Utilizing Agency Technical Review (ATR) to ensure quality and credibility

 Documenting technical decisions

 Sharing best practices and lessons learned

Alternatives

We considered two alternatives – no ac tion and revise the variance process. The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of a process not

consistent with other revisions within the agency such as establishment of Levee Safety Officers and the Risk Management Center. The preferred alternative would be to revise the existing process to incorporate current agency processes,

ensure national consisten cy, and clarify roles and re sponsibilities.

Affected Environment

Revisions to the process for requesting a variance apply nationally. However, changing the process for applying for a va riance does not itself affect the environment or any species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is the decisions on specific variance requests that may effect the environment or listed species. The environmental

effects of each decision on a variance application will be properly evaluated

before a final decision is rendered. Evaluating environmental effects and providing environmental compliance, in cluding NEPA and SA compliance, when decisions are made on specific, individual variance applications is appropriate because impacts will be highly dependent upon the nature of the variance requested and because each variance will likely address a number of geographically unique factors, such as the specific flor a, fauna and geology of a location. Evaluating environmental impacts at the decision stage of the variance process will allow for a much more det ailed understanding of the environmental consequences of the inspection standards applied to particular levee systems. Finally, any environmental impact ma y be dependant upon the levee sponsor’s decision whether to participate in t he levee inspection program.

Environmental Consequences

The no action alternative would not ac hieve the USACE goal of creating a consistent method for addressing regional differences while protecting public3 safety. The current procedures have led to inconsistent and decentralized decision making and record keeping.

The preferred alternative is expected to result in a more consistent use of variances while also preserving public sa fety. By revising the process, USACE will reduce inconsistencies while permitting regional variations . In addition, the more centralized process will improv e record keeping. Evaluating the environmental impacts of determinations of the inspection standards that will apply to specific levee systems will allow for the most accurate understanding of those impacts and the greates t range of options for addr essing them.

Coordination with Others

A 30-day comment period was announced by public notice by ______________

on__________.

Finding of No Significant Impact :

In compliance with the National Envi ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500 – 1508, an Environmental Assessment has been prepared for this policy. The Corps has chosen to prepare NEPA documentation for this Policy Guidance Letter because the Corps recognizes that the PGL establishes a proc ess that may require decisions to be made on applications for vegetation varianc es that could have an adverse effect

on the environment. The envir onmental review process undertaken for this rule has led me to conclude that the publicat ion of the Policy Guidance Letter will not have a significant effect on the qualit y of the human environm ent, and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is not required by §102(2)(C) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. A copy of this Environmental Assessment with

attachments is available fr om the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HQUSACE.

James C. Dalton, P.E., SES Chief, Engineering and Construction

Directorate of Civil Works4 Literature Cited

a. Engineer Regulation (E R) 500-1-1, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, Civil Emergen cy Management Program, Chapter 5, Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, 30 September 2001. b. Engineer Pamphlet (EP) 500-1-1, Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, Civil Emergen cy Management Program – Procedures, Chapter 5, The Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, and Appendix E, Regional Variances to Levee Vegetation Standards, 30 September 2001.
c. Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-571, Guidelin es for Landscape Planting and Vegetati on Management at Le vees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and A ppurtenant Structures , 10 April 2009.