as appropriate, e.g., during the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a proposed project.

(g) Step 6-Reevaluate Alternatives(1) General. Having identified the impacts the proposed action would have on the Floodplain (Step 4), methods to minimize these impacts, and opportunities to restore and preserve Floodplain values (Step 5); the proposed action should now be reevaluated. For proposed actions in the Base Floodplain, the reevaluation should consider if the action is still feasible at this site. If not, consider limiting the action to make non-Floodplain sites practicable. If neither is acceptable, the alternative is no action. If the proposed action is outside the Base Floodplain but has impacts which cannot be minimized (Step 5), consider whether the action can be modified or relocated to eliminate or reduce the identified impacts, or if the no action alternative should be chosen. The reevaluation should also include a provision for comparison of the relative adverse impacts associated with the proposed action located in and out of the Floodplain. The comparison should emphasize Floodplain values. However, a site out of the Floodplain should not be chosen if the overall harm is significantly greater than that associated with the Floodplain site.

(2) Step 6.A. Location in the Base Floodplain. In determining whether the proposed action will be located in the Base Floodplain, the designated official must ascertain that the Floodplain site is the only practicable alternative. Further, the importance of the location must clearly outweigh the requirements of the Order to:

(i) Avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative; (ii) Reduce the risk of flood loss; (iii) Minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare; and

(iv) Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial Floodplain values.

(3) Step 6.B. Limit Action. If an action proposed to be located in the Floodplain cannot satisfy the four requirements in Step 6.A., consider reducing the criteria for the proposed

action. This would lower the threshold for what constitutes a practicable alternative. New alternative actions and sites could then be identified and previously rejected ones reevaluated for practicability based on scaled-down expectations.

(4) Step 6.C. No Action. If neither of the above courses of action are feasible, reevaluate the no action alternative.

re

(h) Step 7—Findings and Public Explanation—(1) General. If evaluation results in the determination that there is no practicable alternative to locating in or impacting the Floodplain, a statement of findings and public explanation must be provided for the proposed action. The SBA Public Statement of Findings and Explanation should explain how any tradeoff analysis was conducted by the agency in making its findings. Some existing Regional public notice procedures may already satisfy part of the requirements of the Order. However, procedures must incorporate the development and issuance of a written statement of findings and public explanation which includes:

(i) A description of why the proposed action must be located in the Floodplain;

(ii) A description of all significant facts considered in making the determination including alternative sites and actions;

(iii) A statement indicating whether the actions conform to applicable State or local Floodplain protection standards;

(2) In addition, and in keeping with the concept of the overall public involvement process discussed in Step 2, the following items should be included in the statement of findings and public explanation:

(i) A statement, if appropriate, indicating why the NFIP criteria are demonstrably inappropriate for the proposed action (for instance, marinas, piers, docks, etc. must be at the water level);

(ii) A provision for publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER or other appropriate vehicle;

(iii) A provision for a brief comment period prior to agency action (15 to 30 days);

13-034 0-83--17

A szement ing The nwe ance and navals

3,374 The Administrator must we were a wide for am

132 xd explanation of way a wowed actions to be located in a Tucat..

14, 322 7.B Actions 3roject NEPA. Por actions subject A SEPA which take place in the Base Floodpain, the pubic review requirements 2.30.88ed above should rcuce the nine items listed in the traductch a this step. Section 2a14, of the Crater requires the same public actice proES dures for Federal actions in the Floodplain even though impacts are not NFnificant enough to require the prepa ration of any environmental impact Watement (EX3, under sectici 102/2/C) of NEPA (Pub. L. 91-190 Under NEPA procedures, a final EIS is circulated for pubite and interagency review and comment. A minimum of 30 days is required to allow a review and to receive responses from the

formatten fiscussed in TA must be seled by the Administrator in compli ance vid section 3401 of the Order. This appites proposed actions lotated with or impacting on the Fcccpian. reuding proposed actions whose impacts are not significant encugi ir are not otherwise required a complete and EMS.

A Step #ingiement Action With the corsiusion of the decisionmaking process described in Steps 1-7. the proposed actor can be implemented. However, there is a continuing responsibility for insuring that the action is carried out in compliance with the Order.

(iv) A description of how the activity will be designed or modified to minimize harm to or within the Floodplain.

(v) A statement indicating how the action affects natural or beneficial Floodplain values;

(vi) A statement listing other involved agencies and individuals.

(3) Step 7.A. The Administrator must develop procedures to provide for similar notice and explanation of why a proposed action is to be located in a Floodplain.

(4) Step 7.B. Actions Subject to NEPA. For actions subject to NEPA which take place in the Base Floodplain, the public review requirements discussed above should include the nine items listed in the introduction to this step. Section 2(a)(4) of the Order requires the same public notice procedures for Federal actions in the Floodplain even though impacts are not significant enough to require the preparation of any environmental impact statement (EIS) under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA (Pub. L. 91-190). Under NEPA procedures, a final EIS is circulated for public and interagency review and comment. A minimum of 30 days is required to allow a review and to receive responses from the

public and

governmental agencies. These comments must then be considered. The findings must be made in conjunction with a final SBA decision, and the formal statement of findings required by the Order must be issued prior to initiating the proposed action. A final EIS should explain, if appropriate, why the responsible official has recommended or why SBA might support an action located in a Floodplain.

(5) Step 7.C. All Actions Located in the Base Floodplain. A statement of findings (including the explanatory information discussed in 7.A.) must be issued by the Administrator in compliance with section 2(a)(2) of the Order. This applies to all proposed actions located within or impacting on the Floodplain, including proposed actions whose impacts are not significant enough or are not otherwise required to complete and EIS.

(i) Step 8-Implement Action. With the conslusion of the decisionmaking process described in Steps 1-7, the proposed action can be implemented. However, there is a continuing responsibility for insuring that the action is carried out in compliance with the Order.