Fillable Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Categorical Exclusion Determination (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Categorical Exclusion Determination (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) (MD) pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Categorical Exclusion Determination (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

On average this form takes 8 minutes to complete

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Categorical Exclusion Determination (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) form is 4 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 22 check-boxes
  • 22 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

U.S.A. forms for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

BROWSE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) (MD) FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
1
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
Categorical Exclusion Determination Form
This form is to be completed before the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council)
uses one or more Categorical Exclusions (CEs) to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) for a specific action or group of actions, as appropriate. More information
on the Council’s NEPA compliance and use of CEs can be found in the Council’s NEPA
Procedures.
Proposed Action Title:
Proposed Action Location: (State, County/Parish)
Proposed Action Description:
Categorical Exclusion(s) Applied:
The Mississippi Sound Estuarine Program (MS_RESTORE_003_000_Cat1) -
Implementation
Mississippi, Jackson, Harrison and Hancock counties
Implementation -- This component involves implementation of foundational research,
including field research, into how the Mississippi Sound and its upland systems interact.
This components covers initiation of a coordinated and collaborative effort to create a
coupled river – to Mississippi Sound hydrodynamic model as a foundational element for
sustainable coastal restoration. This would be a foundational step in identifying critical
observational data gaps needed to support and implement an interdisciplinary modeling
framework designed to address Mississippi’s directive towards sustainable coastal
restoration. The modeling framework will be designed to directly benefit several
restoration efforts such as marsh creation and preservation, artificial reef placement,
support of beach re-nourishment, and supporting oyster reef restoration and
production. The modeling framework will be developed in phases to provide a coupled
hydrologic and hydrodynamic framework within which distributions of suspended
sediment, nutrients, dissolved oxygen and other key water quality parameters can be
added. Ground-truthing with new and existing data will validate the user- and
public-friendly model.
Pursuant to Section 4(d)(4) of the Council’s NEPA Procedures, the Council is using a
USGS CE for non-destructive marine surveys (43 CFR §46.210(e)).
2
Council Use of Member Categorical Exclusion(s)
If the Categorical Exclusion(s) was established by a Federal agency Council member, complete
the following. If not, leave this section blank and proceed to the segmentation section.
Member with Categorical Exclusion(s)
Has the member with CE(s) advised the Council in writing that use of the CE(s) would be
appropriate for the specific action under consideration by the Council, including consideration
of segmentation and extraordinary circumstances (as described below)?
Yes No
Segmentation
Has the proposed action been segmented to meet the definition of a Categorical Exclusion? (In
making this determination, the Council should consider whether the action has independent
utility.)
Yes No
Extraordinary Circumstances
In considering whether to use a Categorical Exclusion for a given action, agencies must review
whether there may be extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may
have a significant environmental effect and, therefore, warrant further review pursuant to NEPA.
Guidance on the review of potential extraordinary circumstances can be found in Section 4(e) of
the Council’s NEPA Procedures. The potential extraordinary circumstances listed below are set
forth in the Council’s NEPA Procedures.
The Council, in cooperation with the sponsor of the activity, has considered the following
potential extraordinary circumstances, where applicable, and has made the following
determinations. (By checking the “No” box, the Council is indicating that the activity under
review would not result in the corresponding potential extraordinary circumstance.)
Yes No 1. Is there a reasonable likelihood of substantial scientific controversy
regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action?
Yes No 2. Are there Tribal concerns with actions that impact Tribal lands or resources
that are sufficient to constitute an extraordinary circumstance?
Yes No 3. Is there a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting environmentally
sensitive resources? Environmentally sensitive resources include but are not
limited to:
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
U.S. Geological Survey (DOI)
3
a. Species that are federally listed or proposed for listing as threatened
or endangered, or their proposed or designated critical habitats; and
b. Properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Yes No 4. Is there a reasonable likelihood of impacts that are highly uncertain or
involve unknown risks or is there a substantial scientific controversy over
the effects?
Yes No 5. Is there a reasonable likelihood of air pollution at levels of concern or
otherwise requiring a formal conformity determination under the Clean Air
Act?
Yes No 6. Is there a reasonable likelihood of a disproportionately high and adverse
effect on low income or minority populations (see Executive Order 12898)?
Yes No 7. Is there a reasonable likelihood of contributing to the introduction or
spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species or actions that may
promote the introduction, or spread of such species (see Federal Noxious
Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112)?
.
Yes No 8. Is there a reasonable likelihood of a release of petroleum, oils, or
lubricants (except from a properly functioning engine or vehicle) or
reportable releases of hazardous or toxic substances as specified in 40 CFR
part 302 (Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification); or where the
proposed action results in the requirement to develop or amend a Spill
Prevention, Control, or Countermeasures Plan in accordance with the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulation?
Supplemental Information
Where appropriate, the following table should be used to provide additional information
regarding the review of potential extraordinary circumstances and compliance with other
applicable laws. The purpose of this table is to ensure that there is adequate information for
specific findings regarding potential extraordinary circumstances.
Supplemental information and documentation is not needed for each individual finding regarding
the potential extraordinary circumstances listed above. Specifically, the nature of an activity
under review may be such that a reasonable person could conclude that there is a very low
potential for a particular type of extraordinary circumstance to exist. For example, it would be
reasonable to conclude that the simple act of acquiring land for conservation purposes (where
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
4
there are no other associated actions) does not present a reasonable likelihood of a release of
petroleum, oils, lubricants, or hazardous or toxic substances.
For some types of activities, no supplemental information may be needed to support a finding
that there are no extraordinary circumstances. For example, where the activity under review is
solely planning (with no associated implementation activity), it may be reasonable to conclude
that none of the extraordinary circumstances listed above would apply. In such cases, the table
below would be left blank.
In other cases, it may be appropriate to include supplemental information to ensure that there
is an adequate basis for a finding regarding a particular extraordinary circumstance. For
example, it might be appropriate in some cases to document coordination and/or consultation
with the appropriate agency regarding compliance with a potentially applicable law (such as
the Endangered Species Act). In those cases, the table below should be used to provide the
supplemental information.
Agency or
Authority
Consulted
Representative:
Name, Office &
Phone
Date of
Consultation
Notes: Topic discussed, relevant
details, and conclusions. (This can
include reference to other information
on file and/or attached for the given
action.)
Additional supplemental information may be attached, as appropriate. Indicate below whether
additional supplemental information is attached.
Additional Information Attached: Yes No
If “Yes”, indicate the subject:
U.S. FWS
MS Field Office
7-30-15
Letter to Council re: ESA ("no
effect")
USGS CE Decision Record and FWS ESA Letter (7-30-15)
✔
NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION REVIEW AND DECISION RECORD
FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE MARINE SURVEYS
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Require Fields are marked with *.
*Proposed Project:
*Description of Proposed Project:
*Description of Location :
List of Reviews Undertaken (for consistency with CZMA, MMPA, ESA, Magnuson-Stevens Act, State and local
regulations, etc. as necessary) :
CATEGORIAL EXCLUSION REVIEW
The proposed project qualifies for the following Department of Interior categorical exclusion under the USGS National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures defined for certain surveys in the ocean, coastal zone, estuaries, lakes, rivers, and
canals:
CFR §46.210 (e): Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and satellite surveying and
mapping), study, research, and monitoring activities.
Extraordinary Circumstances Review
(43 CFR 46.215, Categorical Exclusions: Extraordinary circumstances)
“Significance”, as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity.
Context means the effected environment in which a proposed action would occur; it can be local, regional, national, or all three,
depending on circumstances. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.
Intensity is the severity of the impact. Answering the following questions below will help evaluate intensity.
*If the response on the following questionnaire is ”YES”, attach pertinent document is required. Question 6-8
attachment document are mandatory.
Create a coupled river – Mississippi Sound hydrodynamic model for sustainable coastal restoration in Mississippi
For description of project information, see the attachment provided in the "Additional Information" section of this document.
For description of location information, see the attachment provided in the "Additional Information" section of this document.
Yes / No
1. Will the project require significant disturbance to the seafloor?
If the response is "yes", attach pertinent supporting documentation.
File Attachment
No
2. Will the project potentially result in the release of toxic, hazardous, or radioactive materials to the
environment or in the exposure of people to such materials? (43 CFR Part 46.215(i)). Action: If "Yes", notify
the Office of Management Services for further guidance.
No
File Attachment
3. Is the project likely to be inconsistent with any applicable Federal, State, Tribal, or local law or regulation
designed to protect any aspect of the environment? (43 CFR Part 46.215(i)). If the response is “Yes”, attach
pertinent supporting documentation.
No
File Attachment
4. Will the project result in significant impacts on public health or safety? (43 CFR Part 46.21 5 (a)). If the
response is “Yes”, attach pertinent supporting documentation.
No
File Attachment
5. Will the project or associated disturbance have significant impacts to natural resources and/or unique
geographic characteristics such as park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers;
national monuments; national natural landmarks; state or locally recognized cultural, economic, and historical
resources; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; wetlands; floodplains; migratory birds; wildlife; marine
mammals, fish, marine birds, or marine protected species (e.g., turtles); or other ecologically significant or
critical areas? (43 CFR Part 46.2 15(b))? Will specific mitigation measures (e.g., Protected Species Visual
Observers, shutdown periods) be used to reduce the potential for impact of the activities on the environment?
If the response is “Yes”, attach pertinent supporting documentation.
No
File Attachment
6. Will the project or associated disturbance have a significant Impact on species listed, or proposed to be
listed, on the Federal list of Endangered or Threatened Species or have significant impacts on the designated
critical habitat for these species? (43 CFR Part 46.21 5(h)) Attach the Fish and W ildlife Service determination
documentation for all consultations. If consultations were not performed, a detailed explanation must be
provided.
*
MSEP - Additional
Information_FINAL_7-1-
15_T&E.docx
Microsoft Word Document
16.9 KB
No
7. Will the project limit access to and ceremonial use of Tribal sites on lands by Tribal religious practitioners or
significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites? (43 CFR Part 46.215(k)). Will the
project occur in areas routinely used for subsistence activities by tribal groups? Attach supporting
documentation, if applicable.
No
*
MSEP - Additional
Information_FINAL_7-1-
15_tribal.docx
Microsoft Word Document
17.0 KB
8. Will the project likely encounter marine archaeological sites and, if so, what measures will be taken to
ensure their integrity? (43 CFR Park 46.215(g)))
Attach pertinent supporting document.
No
*
MSEP - Additional
Information_FINAL_7-1-
15_archeology.docx
Microsoft Word Document
16.9 KB
9. Will the project have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or
No
Additional Information:
Please attach additional information, if necessary, that will assist the Environmental Program Manager in the decision -making
process that was not provided above.
DECISION
If the answers to all the questions are NO, the project requires no further environmental review and qualifies for categorical
exclusion under NEPA (516 DM 9.5) (reference the specific categorical exclusion). The Evaluator and the Science Center Director or
Designee shall sign and date the checklist, and send the checklist to the Environmental Program Coordinator for review and
signature. The signed checklist and all supporting documentation shall become part of the official project record.
If the answer to any question is YES, the project requires further environmental review (possibly an Environmental Assessment or
an Environmental Impact Statement ) and may not qualify for Categorical Exclusion under NEPA. The Evaluator and the Science
Center Director or Designee shall sign and date the checklist, and submit the checklist to the Environmental Program Coordinator
unknown environmental risks?(43 CFR Part 46.215(d)) Action: If "Yes", notify the Office of Management
Services for further guidance.
10. Will the project establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future
actions with potentially significant environmental effects. (43 CFR Part 46.2 15(e). If the response is "Yes",
attach pertinent supporting documentation.
No
File Attachment
11. Will the project have a direct relation to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant environmental effects? (43 CFR Part 46.2 15(f)). If the response is "Yes", attach pertinent supporting
documentation.
File Attachment
No
12, Will the project have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning
alternative uses of available resources? (43 CFR Part 46.215(c)). If the response is "Yes", attach pertinent
supporting document.
No
File Attachment
13. Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations?
(43 CFR Part 46.215(J)). If the response is "Yes", attach pertinent supporting documentation.
No
File Attachment
14. Will the project contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non -
native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or
expansion of the range of such species? (43 CFR Part 46.215(1)). If the response is "Yes", attach pertinent
supporting documentation.
No
File Attachment
Supporting documentation
for CMPG_MSEP_MS.docx
Microsoft Word Document
2.08 MB
for review. The checklist and all supporting documentation shall become part of the official project record.
If the last signature block is signed, then the proposed project qualifies for the categorical exclusion under USGS national
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures at Departmental manual 516, chapter 9.5.
Change in scope of work, project schedule, location, or passage of new environmental regulations may trigger additional NEPA
compliance requirements.
Electronically Signed By Evaluator: Gregory D Steyer on 07/06/2015
Comment: (Require if Disapproved was click):
Approved By Environmental Protection Specialist: Herrington, Larry E. on 07/09/2015
Comment: (Require if Disapproved was click):
Approved By Science Center Director, Associate Director, or Regional Director: Weaver, Jess D. on 07/10/2015
Requestor/Evaluator : Submitted On Date :
Environmental Protection Specialist :
Science Center Director, Associate Director, or Regional Director:
Gregory D Steyer
2015-07-06
Herrington, Larry E.
Weaver, Jess D.
RESTORE Funded Priorities List - Environmental Compliance Checklist
Environmental Compliance Type
Yes
No
Applied
For
N/A
Federal***
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)
x
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
x
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
x
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
x
NEPA – Categorical Exclusion
x
NEPA – Environmental Assessment
x
NEPA – Environmental Impact Statement
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – Individual Permit (USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – General Permit(USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – Letters of Permission(USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 401 – WQ certification
x
Clean Water Act – 402 – NPDES
x
Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 (USACOE)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Informal and Formal Consultation
(NMFS, USFWS)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 - Biological Assessment
(BOEM,USACOE)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Biological Opinion (NMFS, USFWS)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Permit for Take (NMFS, USFWS)
x
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) – Consultation (NMFS)
x
Marine Mammal Protection Act – Incidental Take Permit (106) (NMFS,
USFWS)
x
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USFWS)
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – Consultation and Planning (USFWS)
x
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act – Section 103 permit
(NMFS)
x
BOEM Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act – Section 8 OCS Lands Sand
permit
x
NHPA Section 106 – Consultation and Planning ACHP, SHPO(s), and/or
THPO(s)
x
NHPA Section 106 – Memorandum of Agreement/Programmatic Agreement
x
Tribal Consultation (Government to Government)
x
Coastal Barriers Resource Act – CBRS (Consultation)
x
State
As Applicable per State
*** It is anticipated that the establishment of the Mississippi Sound Estuarine Program will not
require environmental compliance as it is the establishment of a coordinating program. Council
approval of funding for this proposed activity would not involve or lead directly to ground-
disturbing activities that may have significant effects on the environment individually or
cumulatively, nor would it commit the Council to a particular course of action affecting the
environment. The Council has considered potential extraordinary circumstances, including
potential negative effects to threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat, Tribal
interests and/or historic properties, where applicable, and has determined that no such
circumstances apply. Accordingly, the Council has determined that this proposed activity would
Question 6 Response
be covered by the Council’s NEPA Categorical Exclusion for planning, research or design
activities. (See the Council’s NEPA Procedures, Section 4(d)(3). The establishment of the
program includes a sampling component which will require minor physical data collection
including collection of water quality samples and making circulation/velocity
measurements. These are non-destructive marine surveys that would be conducted at 50 to 100
locations in a shallow draft 23-26 ft. skiff. Compliance for this activity is covered under CFR
46.210 (e): Non-destructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and satellite
surveying and mapping), study, research and monitoring activities). Endangered and Threatened
species compliance, Tribal and marine archaeological compliance are provided below.
As it pertains to 43 CFR 46.21 5(h) – Endangered and Threatened species. The only sample
collection will be for water (both surface and near bottom water samples). The size of the
sampling container is less than 1 gallon. The craft used to collect the samples is a recreational
shallow draft vessel (length 23-26’) with a draft depth of 12”. This sample collection will not
have a significant impact on the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened species or have
significant impacts on the designated habitat of these species.
Question 6 Response
RESTORE Funded Priorities List - Environmental Compliance Checklist
Environmental Compliance Type
Yes
No
Applied
For
N/A
Federal***
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)
x
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
x
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
x
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
x
NEPA – Categorical Exclusion
x
NEPA – Environmental Assessment
x
NEPA – Environmental Impact Statement
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – Individual Permit (USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – General Permit(USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – Letters of Permission(USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 401 – WQ certification
x
Clean Water Act – 402 – NPDES
x
Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 (USACOE)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Informal and Formal Consultation
(NMFS, USFWS)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 - Biological Assessment
(BOEM,USACOE)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Biological Opinion (NMFS, USFWS)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Permit for Take (NMFS, USFWS)
x
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) – Consultation (NMFS)
x
Marine Mammal Protection Act – Incidental Take Permit (106) (NMFS,
USFWS)
x
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USFWS)
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – Consultation and Planning (USFWS)
x
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act – Section 103 permit
(NMFS)
x
BOEM Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act – Section 8 OCS Lands Sand
permit
x
NHPA Section 106 – Consultation and Planning ACHP, SHPO(s), and/or
THPO(s)
x
NHPA Section 106 – Memorandum of Agreement/Programmatic Agreement
x
Tribal Consultation (Government to Government)
x
Coastal Barriers Resource Act – CBRS (Consultation)
x
State
As Applicable per State
*** It is anticipated that the establishment of the Mississippi Sound Estuarine Program will not
require environmental compliance as it is the establishment of a coordinating program. Council
approval of funding for this proposed activity would not involve or lead directly to ground-
disturbing activities that may have significant effects on the environment individually or
cumulatively, nor would it commit the Council to a particular course of action affecting the
environment. The Council has considered potential extraordinary circumstances, including
potential negative effects to threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat, Tribal
interests and/or historic properties, where applicable, and has determined that no such
circumstances apply. Accordingly, the Council has determined that this proposed activity would
Question 7 Response
be covered by the Council’s NEPA Categorical Exclusion for planning, research or design
activities. (See the Council’s NEPA Procedures, Section 4(d)(3). The establishment of the
program includes a sampling component which will require minor physical data collection
including collection of water quality samples and making circulation/velocity
measurements. These are non-destructive marine surveys that would be conducted at 50 to 100
locations in a shallow draft 23-26 ft. skiff. Compliance for this activity is covered under CFR
46.210 (e): Non-destructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and satellite
surveying and mapping), study, research and monitoring activities). Endangered and Threatened
species compliance, Tribal and marine archaeological compliance are provided below.
As it pertains to 43 CFR Part 46.215(k), limiting access to and ceremonial use of Tribal sites on
lands. This project does not take place on land and has no restrictions in terms of access or any
disturbance that would affect physical integrity of sites. Sample collection will not occur in areas
routinely used for subsistence activities by Tribal groups. The only sample collection will be for
water (both surface and near bottom water samples). The size of the sampling container is less
than 1 gallon. The craft used to collect the samples is a recreational shallow draft vessel (length
23-26’) with a draft depth of 12”.
Question 7 Response
RESTORE Funded Priorities List - Environmental Compliance Checklist
Environmental Compliance Type
Yes
No
Applied
For
N/A
Federal***
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)
x
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
x
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
x
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
x
NEPA – Categorical Exclusion
x
NEPA – Environmental Assessment
x
NEPA – Environmental Impact Statement
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – Individual Permit (USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – General Permit(USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 404 – Letters of Permission(USACOE)
x
Clean Water Act – 401 – WQ certification
x
Clean Water Act – 402 – NPDES
x
Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 (USACOE)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Informal and Formal Consultation
(NMFS, USFWS)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 - Biological Assessment
(BOEM,USACOE)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Biological Opinion (NMFS, USFWS)
x
Endangered Species Act – Section 7 – Permit for Take (NMFS, USFWS)
x
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) – Consultation (NMFS)
x
Marine Mammal Protection Act – Incidental Take Permit (106) (NMFS,
USFWS)
x
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USFWS)
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – Consultation and Planning (USFWS)
x
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act – Section 103 permit
(NMFS)
x
BOEM Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act – Section 8 OCS Lands Sand
permit
x
NHPA Section 106 – Consultation and Planning ACHP, SHPO(s), and/or
THPO(s)
x
NHPA Section 106 – Memorandum of Agreement/Programmatic Agreement
x
Tribal Consultation (Government to Government)
x
Coastal Barriers Resource Act – CBRS (Consultation)
x
State
As Applicable per State
*** It is anticipated that the establishment of the Mississippi Sound Estuarine Program will not
require environmental compliance as it is the establishment of a coordinating program. Council
approval of funding for this proposed activity would not involve or lead directly to ground-
disturbing activities that may have significant effects on the environment individually or
cumulatively, nor would it commit the Council to a particular course of action affecting the
environment. The Council has considered potential extraordinary circumstances, including
potential negative effects to threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat, Tribal
interests and/or historic properties, where applicable, and has determined that no such
circumstances apply. Accordingly, the Council has determined that this proposed activity would
Question 8 Response
be covered by the Council’s NEPA Categorical Exclusion for planning, research or design
activities. (See the Council’s NEPA Procedures, Section 4(d)(3). The establishment of the
program includes a sampling component which will require minor physical data collection
including collection of water quality samples and making circulation/velocity
measurements. These are non-destructive marine surveys that would be conducted at 50 to 100
locations in a shallow draft 23-26 ft. skiff. Compliance for this activity is covered under CFR
46.210 (e): Non-destructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and satellite
surveying and mapping), study, research and monitoring activities). Endangered and Threatened
species compliance, Tribal and marine archaeological compliance are provided below.
As it pertains to 43 CFR Part 46.215(g), the project will not encounter marine archeological sites
in the area of sampling. The only sample collection will be for water (both surface and near
bottom water samples). The size of the sampling container is less than 1 gallon. The craft used to
collect the samples is a recreational shallow draft vessel (length 23-26’) with a draft depth of
12”.
Question 8 Response
NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION REVIEW AND DECISION RECORD
FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE MARINE SURVEYS
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Proposed Project: Create a coupled river – Mississippi Sound hydrodynamic model for
sustainable coastal restoration in Mississippi
Description of Proposed Project:
This objective will be a collaborative coordinated research effort towards understanding
connectivity between our rivers and streams, and how they influence hydrological patterns of our
bays, estuaries, and eventually the Mississippi Sound. There have been several excellent, yet
disparate, research efforts across the Mississippi Gulf coast of bays and estuaries and the
Mississippi Sound. For example, the US Army Corps of Engineers CH3D modeling for the
Mississippi Sound for the MsCIP program in 2007; ERDC/NRL conducted a 3D watershed
model of the Biloxi Bay Watershed and coupled it to ADCIRC in Biloxi Bay and the Mississippi
Sound; the Northern Gulf Institute has conducted an integrated ecosystem assessment for St.
Louis Bay around water quality drivers and stressors, and there is currently a WASP/EFDC
effort underway through Mississippi State University in St Louis Bay. There are likely an
additional half dozen data sources, that have either had no connectivity to link these research
efforts, nor were the efforts not explicitly focused on restoration outcomes, and there are still
missing pieces that are required to understand the system holistically.
This objective’s effort will be a foundational step in identifying critical observational data gaps
needed to support and implement an interdisciplinary modeling framework designed to address
Mississippi’s directive towards sustainable coastal restoration. The final deliverable will be a
foundational hydrodynamic model that represents a key beginning to understanding transport
dynamics in our coastal system. The modeling framework will be designed to directly benefit
several restoration efforts such as marsh creation and preservation, artificial reef placement,
support of beach re-nourishment, and supporting oyster reef restoration and production. The
modeling framework will be developed in phases to provide a coupled hydrologic and
hydrodynamic framework within which distributions of suspended sediment, nutrients, dissolved
oxygen and other key water quality parameters can be added. Additionally, the framework’s
ability to simulate circulation will assist in the design and construction of restoration projects.
For example, simulation of circulation will improve the design and likelihood of success of
oyster reef restoration by optimizing structure height, avoidance of high siltation, and positioning
according to larval transport for spat recruitment to established sites. By exploring various inflow
scenarios, model-generated projections will deliver guidance on how best to implement living
resource restoration through site selection assessments that offer objective justification of coastal
restoration expenditures.
Ground-truthing with new and existing data will validate the user- and public-friendly model,
and the product will be applied to the adaptive measures for site restoration and management.
Moreover, this foundational program will gain added value and potential leverage from other
funded and proposed oil-spill research and modeling studies to provide the most effective use of
restoration dollars.
Supporting Documentation
The general scope of work for this proposed project will include:
• Coordination and data assimilation of existing models and data inputs
• Decision to type of model, extent of model, and phases of model development
• Model development – including grid development, data synthesis, assimilation, and
analyses
• Model calibration including ground truthing by collecting water samples, and measuring
current velocities
The only physical data collection within this model development will be the collection of water
quality samples, as well as making circulation/velocity measurements.
Water sample collection will occur in the general location highlighted by the planning units in
the description of location below. It is anticipated that between 50 – 100 water sampling stations
may be sampled over the course of the model development. Existing data collections by the
respective state and federal agencies will be leveraged at all junctures to enhance model
validation. At each station both surface water sample as well as water sample at depth (if
necessary) will be collected. Surface samples will be collected with a grab bucket, while at depth
samples will be sampled with a Van-Dorn bottle. No sediment samples will be taken. All water
samples will be stored and transported to USM/MSU water quality labs for subsequent water
quality analyses. Water samples will likely be analyzed for a suite of nitrogen and phosphorus
species, including total suspended sediments. Turbidity measurements will occur in the field
with turbidimeters as well as flourometers that measure fluorescence of each water sample.
Dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, and specific conductance will be measured in situ using a typical
data sonde that allows for instantaneous parameter analysis. Flow or current velocity will be
measured with standard magnetometers both at the surface as well as at depth.
Data collection will occur by boat, likely a 23-26ft skiff, with a shallow draft depth. The depth of
the monitoring locations could be from < 2ft, to approximately 20ft deep. It is highly unlikely
that samples will be taken in deeper waters, unless samples are taken in federal navigation
channels.
Supporting Documentation
Description of Location:
Below is an outline of the area of interest for the development of a hydrodynamic model. It is
highly unlikely, based on funding that the entire area will be captured and sampled for the model.
Each hexagonal unit represent 200ha within the Mississippi Sound, bay/estuary complex. It
extends from the Pearl River in the West to the Grand Bay complex in the east, extends up our
river systems, and 3 miles beyond our barrier islands.
Supporting Documentation
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Categorical Exclusion Determination (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 10 August 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document