EPA CWPPRA NEPA Inclusion Analysis I. IDENTIFYING PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Project Federal Contact Project State BS-0043 Reggio Marsh Creation LA Sharon Osowski, Ph.D. osowski.sharon@epa.gov (214-665-7506) II. OTHER FEDERAL PARTNERS AND LEVEL OF NEPA ANALYSIS Has anotherFederal agency completed NEPA? Yes No Is EPAthe lead federal agency for X Yes this NEPA analysis? No I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES FOR ANALYSIS X I have all information needed to complete the final analysis of impacts for the entire project Summarize the proposed action, including historic/geographic/ ecological context, the type of restoration, and how it will be conducted. The Reggio Marsh Creation project area is in Region Two of the Breton Sound Basin in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. The community of Reggio, LA is located approximately 21 miles southeast of New Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish. The Reggio Marsh Creation project area is bounded on the north by an existing tidal levee, on the south by the Reggio Canal, and on the west by the Reggio community, and will serve as an important buffer to protect this coastal community from storm surge. St. Bernard Parish may incur some of the highest wetland loss as a percentage of total parish land area over the next 50 years of any coastal parish. With no further coastal protection or restoration actions, the parish could lose an additional 237 square miles, or 72% of the parish land area over the next 50 years. In this area, coastal wetland loss can be attributed to both anthropogenic and natural factors, such as drilling and dredging for oil and gas, flooding marshes from sea-level rise, storm-driven erosion from Hurricanes Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Isaac (2012) and Ida (2021), and subsidence. The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) and the 2017 Coastal Master Plan use two primary marsh restoration techniques to help offset marshland loss in the Breton Sound Basin. These marsh restoration techniques include river diversions and marsh creation projects. Sediment dredged from Lake Lery will be placed in the marsh creation area, which is divided into 4 subcells and separated by internal training dikes (ITD). Detailed engineering and Design specifications can be found in the 95% report (Appendix G). Check the types of activities being conducted in this project: Technical Assistance 0 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring 0 Planning, Feasibility Studies, Design Engineering, and Permitting™^ ~ Environmental Education Classes, Programs, Centers, Partnerships and Materials; Training Programs 0 Fish and Wildlife Monitoring Check the specific project planning activities being analyzed in this checklist ~ Feasibility Studies | J| Permitting and Consultations ~ Engineering and Design ~ Riverine and Coastal Habitat Restoration Beach and Dune Restoration Debris Removal Dam and Culvert Removal & Replacement Technical and Nature-like Fishways Invasive Species Control Prescribed Burns/Forest Management Species Enhancement Channel Restoration Water Conservation and Stream Diversion Levee & Culvert Removal, Modification, Set-back X Fringing Marsh and Shoreline Stabilization Sediment Removal Bank Restoration and Erosion Reduction Coral Reef Restoration Shellfish Reef Restoration Artificial Reef Restoration Road Upgrading/Decommissioning; Trail Restoration X Sediment/Materials Placement Signage and Access Management Wetland Planting SAV Restoration Marine Algae Restoration Conservation Transactions Land Acquisition IV. PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Water Transactions Restoration/Conservation Banking 1. Are the activities to be carried out under this project fully described in Section 2.2 of the NOAA RC PEIS? 2. Are the specific impacts that are likely to result from this project fully described in Section 4.5.2 of the NOAA RC PEIS? 3. Does the level of adverse impact forthe project exceed that described in Table 11 of the NOAA RC PEISfor any resource, including significant adverse impact? / Yes No £ Yes No Yes / No ------- EPA CWPPRA NEPA Inclusion Analysis bs-oo43 Reggio Marsh creation Describe the public comment process, including opportunities for the public to comment. A BS-43 community meeting was held on July 20, 2023. NEPA Solicitation of Views was initiated on October 6, 2023 and ended on October 27, 2023. Further opportunity for the public to comment will be at the December 2023 CWPPRA Technical Committee meeting when the Committee votes on projects to move forward into Phase 2 Construction. A CWPPRA project is subjected to layers of public and interagency review. This process is outlined at https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental/CWPPRA/ Members of the public can attend these meetings and submit comments through their parish representative. Electronic voting by each CWPPRA federal agency, the State, and coastal parish screens projects to 20 nominees. Describe comments received (including scientific, environmental, and public). Comments from the community meeting included requests to include small open water areas to the W of the draft boundary as well as addressing the "corner" near the Reggio marina area. Some of these comments were incorporated into the 95% design. No issues of scientific/environmental controversy have been communicated. Summarize the project impacts to resources (including beneficial and cumulative impacts) and any mitigating measures being implemented. The cumulative impact of EPA's participation in CWPPRA and in restoration activities has enabled estuarine habitat creation and protection. Cumulative impacts of any eventual construction activities would include moderate increases in biological diversity of local coastal ecosystems and living resource communities and improved ecological functions in restored areas. Minor local adverse impacts from construction activities are not expected to pose any cumulatively adverse significant impact. More information is included in the supplemental document to this form. Resource Type of Impact Duration Extent Intensity Quality Attachment Geology & Soils Direct Short-Term Localized Minor Beneficial Yes Impacts would be both adverse and beneficial. Equipment will be restricted to specific routes. Vegetation and retention dikes will stabilize soil. Air Direct Short-Term Localized Minor Adverse Yes Potential impacts due to machinery needed for wetland restoration activities. BMPs would minimize exhaust fumes and fugitive dust. Primary production through increased marsh productivity would benefit air quality long-term. See Supplemental Information Appendicies A and B. Water Indirect Short-Term Localized Minor Adverse Yes Potential impacts would be both direct and indirect, short-term adverse and long-term beneficial. BMPs would minimize turbidity. Gapping of containment dikes would allow natural surface flow after construction. See Supplemental Information Appendicies A and B. Living Coastal & Marine Resources & EFH Indirect Short-Term Localized Minor Beneficial Yes Potential impacts would be both direct and indirect; short-term adverse, long-term beneficial. Mitigation would focus on vegetative management to protect species. See Supplemental Information Appendicies A and C. Threatened & Endangered Species Direct Short-Term Localized Minor Adverse Yes Potential impacts are both short-term adverse and long-term beneficial. Species are likely to return after construction ceases. Creation of wetlands would result in direct, long-term beneficial impacts to species. See Supplemental Information Appendix D. Cultural & Historic Properties No Effect Yes No cultural or historical sites or artifacts were found during the cultural survey of the project area. See Supplemental Information Appendix E. Land Use & Recreation Direct Short-Term Localized Minor Adverse Yes Potential impacts are both short-term adverse and long-term beneficial. Staging areas would be returned to pre-construction conditions or better. Socioeconomics Indirect Short-Term Localized Minor Beneficial Yes Potential impacts would be both short- and long-term beneficial. Coordination with the local community would ensure that local concerns are addressed. See Supplemental Information Appendix A. ------- EPA CWPPRA NEPA Inclusion Analysis BS-0043 Reggio Marsh Creation Law and Regulation Compliance Status Status Attachment National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Complete No historic sites identified. Letter from SHPO concurring. See Supplemental Information Appendix E. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Ongoing This form serves as NEPA compliance since EPA adopted the NOAA Restoration PEIS on June 13, 2023. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Ongoing Yes No Yes Incorporated into CWA Section 404 permit and Endangered Species Act coordination. See Supplemental Information Appendix D. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Occurring within ESA Section 7 consultation. See Supplemental Information Appendix D. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Managment Act Consultation initiated with NMFS. See Supplemental Information Appendix C. Ongoing Ongoing Yes Yes No Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act In Compliance Assessed with this Form in supplemental information attached. See Supplemental Information Appendicies A, C, and D. EO 13175 Consultation & Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Not Applicable No Cultural resources report did not identify any archeological or historical sites. Tribes included as part of the solicitation of views. EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority & Low-Income Populations In Compliance Yes Results of EJSCREEN indicate very low population in general and no EJ concerns identified. See Supplemental Information Appendix A. EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands To Be Initiated No Assessed with this Form and supplemental information attached. Endangered Species Act of 1973 Ongoing Yes ESA Section 7 initiated on November 1, 2023. See Supplemental Information Appendix D. Coastal Zone Management Act of LA EO 11998, Floodplain Management To Be Initiated Yes Permit application has been drafted concurrent with the CWA Section 404 permit application. See Supplemental Information Appendix B. Clean Water Act To Be Initiated Yes A draft CWA Sect. 404 permit application will be initiated after a pre-application meeting if this project is funded for construction.Appx. B. Clean Air Act of 1970 Short term air impacts due to construction equipment. Permit not necessary. Archeological & Historic Preservation Act of 1974 No historic sites identified. Letter from SHPO concurring. See Supplemental Information Appendix E. V. NEPA DETERMINATION Not Applicable Complete No Yes ~ The action is completely covered by the impact analysis within the NOAA RC Programmatic EIS (PEIS). The project and its potential impacts may be limited through terms or conditions placed on the recipient of EPA CWPPRA funds. It requires no further environmental review. The action or its impacts are not covered by the analysis within the PEIS. It will require preparation of an individual EA, a supplemental EIS, adoption of another agency's EAor EIS, or will be covered by a Categorical Exclusion. Approver Signature Date Signed ------- |