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


-------