Emergency Watershed Protection

1. Emergency Watershed Protection Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement EWP Training- Denver, CO

2. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement • Scoping • Alternatives • Impacts • Mitigation • Tiering EWP Training- Denver, CO

3. NEPA - Scoping Process • Scoping Comments Received From Other Agencies & NRCS • Interagency Team (EPA, FS, FEMA, USACE, FWS] • NRCS Field Personnel (to ID practices analyzed in EIS) EWP Training- Denver, CO

4. Scoping: Overview of Comments Key Outcomes: • More environmentally-friendly methods should be used • Proactive interagency pre-planning and coordination is critical EWP Training- Denver, CO

5. Programmatic Alternatives • No Action -- Continue current program • Proposed Action -- Program Improvement and Expansion • Prioritized Watershed Planning & Management • Preferred Alternative -- Program Improvement and Expansion EWP Training- Denver, CO

6. Other Alternatives Considered • Program Alternatives not Analyzed in Detail: • Reduced Federal role • Grants to States Elements Proposed for Addition to the Proposed Action: • Road repairs • Lakeshore restoration • NGO sponsoring of FP easements EWP Training- Denver, CO

7. Major Environmental Program Changes • Accelerated shift from armoring to bioengineering methods • Improved “natural” channel design • Increased focus on defensibility • Improve disaster readiness EWP Training- Denver, CO

8. Actions AnalyzedFPEIS 5.2.1 Restoration Practices: • Debris removal -- channel capacity • Streambank restoration • Dam, dike, and levee repair • Protecting structures in floodplains • Protecting watershed uplands EWP Training- Denver, CO

9. Actions Analyzed FPEIS 5.2.1 Floodplain Easements: • Agricultural easements • Non-agricultural easements New Practices: • Restoration of floodplain deposition sites • Removal of debris from watershed uplands • Repair of damaged enduring structural conservation practices EWP Training- Denver, CO

10. Impacts Analysis Results • 5.2 Biotic Impacts of Typical Practices & Easements • Practice impacts local and downstream • Cumulative impacts at watershed level could be important EWP Training- Denver, CO

11. Impacts Analysis Results • 5.3 Human Community Impacts of Projects • Public health and safety preserved • Community patterns may be disrupted by EWP project EWP Training- Denver, CO

12. Impacts Analysis Results • 5.4 Cumulative Impacts of EWP + Other Actions • Multiple projects with other actions could affect already degraded watersheds • Sample watersheds and programmatic analysis EWP Training- Denver, CO

13. Mitigation- (40CFR 1508.20) • (a) Avoiding the impact • (b) Minimizing impacts • (c) Rectifying the impact • (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact • (e) Compensating for the impact EWP Training- Denver, CO

14. Mitigation of Impacts: Biotic • Consult with USF&WS & NMFS for E&T species, critical habitat, anadromous fish • Reduce the use of structural practices • Design measures using principles of natural stream dynamics & bioengineering EWP Training- Denver, CO

15. Mitigation of Impacts: Biotic Coordinate Other Federal, State, and local agencies and landowning public to ensure EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines : • are understood conceptually • are followed as a planning practice --Mitigate loss of wetlands and floodplain resources EWP Training- Denver, CO

16. Mitigation of Impacts: Social and Economic Seek To: • Keep EWP bid packages small to allow return of a portion of EWP funds to the locality EWP Training- Denver, CO

17. Mitigation of Impacts: Cultural Resources • Consult with SHPO, THPO, fed. tribes • Consult before the disaster occurs • Notify ACHP when adverse effect • APE to include entire area of potential effect EWP Training- Denver, CO

18. Tiering to the PEIS Tiering is: • Covering general matters in broader EIS’s with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses • Incorporating by reference general discussions, concentrating solely on issues specific to subsequent action EWP Training- Denver, CO

19. Tiering: Site-specific DSR may incorporate by reference: • PEIS sections for EWP measures proposed in DSR • PEIS sections for EWP effects • State-level ERP for agency coordination protocols on E&Ts, cultural resources, etc. • Documented event-level information on locations of previous EWP projects for cumulative impacts analysis EWP Training- Denver, CO

20. Actions That Cannot Be Tiered Additional NEPA analysis must be conducted and documented: • When proposed actions employ practices or techniques not evaluated in the EWP PEIS • Site- level EA • Event- level EA • State- level EA • Reference practices in EWP PEIS having similar impacts and define differences EWP Training- Denver, CO

21. Tiering: For Practices/Techniques Not Addressed in PEIS, Note How: • The effects should be similar to other in-stream methods analyzed in PEIS, if that is the case • The practice might differ in impacts (higher gradient, different bottom substrate, storm differences) EWP Training- Denver, CO

22. Tiering: For Practices/Techniques Not Addressed in PEIS Analysis: • Note that difference should not cause greater impacts than those described in PEIS, if that is the case • Describe effects • If they could be more severe, describe any mitigation to reduce impacts EWP Training- Denver, CO

23. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement • Scoping • Alternatives • Impacts • Mitigation • Tiering EWP Training- Denver, CO

24. NTSC Ecologists Kristin Smith Meg Bishop Matthew Judy EWP Training- Denver, CO