Appendix F - Project Performance Monitoring Plan
JACKSON HOLE, WYOMING,
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
NEPA COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
Attached are the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant impact (FONSl) for the Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Environmental Restoration Feasibility Study. The preferred plan (referred to in the Feasibility Report as the Initially Proposed NER Pian) at that time addressed various construction tools to be used in the selected four sites (Areas 1, 4, 9 and 10). At that time, the proposed project covered approximately 5 miles of the 22-mile reach of the Snake River that is bounded intermittently by Federal flood control levees. Subsequent to that evaluation, a decision was made to expand the area of the proposed project to encompass the entire 22-mile reach. The project expansion resulted from discussions during an Altemative Formulation Briefing and a site visit with Corps of Engineers, Headquarters personnel, in October 1999.
Walla Walla District received a recommendation to consider using the cost and benefit information, and analysis of effects gathered for the 5-mile study area (presented in the report as the Initially Proposed Plan) as a proxy for the entire 22-mile reach. The rationale is that the engineering measures that would be used had already been identified, the benefits had been calculated, the construction costs had been estimated, and environmental effects could be extrapolated from the initial four sites. The District would use estimates from the first four proposed sites to formulate a plan to restore an expanded area. The complete plan developed by the District was presented as the Progressive Plan in the Feasibility Report.
The purpose of the project as described in the EA is to restore fish and wildlife habitat that was lost as a result of construction, operation, and maintenance of levees constructed under the Jackson Hole Flood Control Project. The proposed Progressive Plan will be of increasing benefit as additional sites are approved, funded, and constructed. Our purpose will be enhanced through additional re-establishment of river channel stability, protection of the remaining diverse habitats, and restoration of the diversity and sustainability of degraded habitats.
The attached EA was centered on the evaluation of the tools and methods of construction. These same tools we be utilized in additional sites selected for construction in the project area. Since this project is designed with an adaptive management component, the type of tools used at each subsequent site will be greatly influenced by the success of the tools implemented in the first four sites. Monitoring is an important aspect of this project, and results will be incorporated into future site development.
The FONSI affirms the programmatic analysis of measures to be utilized at 12 locations throughout the 22-mile Jackson reach of the Snake River. With this programmatic assessment, additional site-specific compliance coordination is required to be completed closer to the time of scheduled implementation or construction as part of the adaptive management strategy.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
JACKSON HOLE, WYOMING, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
AUGUST 2000
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Walla Walla District, proposes to construct channel stabilization pools, off-channel pools, secondary channels, eco-fences, spur dikes, rock grade control structures, place root wad logs, and remove gravel to achieve environmental restoration objectives in the Snake River at Jackson, Wyoming. The purpose of the project is to restore fish and wildlife habitat that has been degraded by the construction, operation, and maintenance of levees constructed under the Jackson Hole Flood Control Project (Public Law 516, Flood Control Act of 1950), including levees constructed by non-Federal interests (Water Resources Development Act of 1986).
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works authorized in a Study Resolution of June 12, 1990, the Jackson Hole, River and Wetland Restoration Study, Wyoming, to determine the advisability of restoring fish and wildlife habitat. The levees reduced the available floodplain resulting in increased water velocities, unstable channel configurations, elimination of natural channel braiding, and erosion of islands and associated vegetation. Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout have been and continue to be affected by the loss of spawning areas and in-stream and over-wintering habitat. Spawning areas in the main river are reduced through scouring and in spring creeks by debris blockages. Other habitat impacts for fish include the loss of shade, in-stream woody debris, and low-energy resting habitat. Terrestrial habitat has also been negatively affected through the loss of shrub-willow and cottonwood riparian areas used by moose, elk, mule deer, furbearers, numerous small mammals, and various other wildlife species.
The Corps prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential effects of restoration measures upon environmental resources and upon the Jackson Hole Flood Control Project. The purpose of the EA is to ensure actions and restoration measures proposed as a result of the study meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and subsequent implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500) and the Corps’ Engineering Regulation 200-2-2. The EA and Draft FONSI were prepared in the spring of 1999. The preferred plan at that time evaluated the effects of numerous restoration measures and construction tools to be used at four selected sites in the project area. At that time, the proposed project covered approximately 5 miles of the 22-mile stretch of the river that is bounded by Federal flood control levees.
The Corps evaluated 4 alternatives in the EA, including the "no action" alternative. Alternative 1 included the comprehensive implementation of restoration measures throughout the 500-year floodplain at an unlimited number of areas. This broad approach to restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitat would implement measures between the levees, restore flows to spring creeks and vegetation outside of the levees, as well as maintain the base flood capacity. This comprehensive approach satisfied the purpose and need of the project. However, it proved to be too comprehensive and, therefore, too costly for the local sponsor and was thus eliminated from further consideration.
A second alternative was developed to provide a similar comprehensive approach to restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitat and maintaining base flood capacity inside the existing levee system. Under this alternative, twelve areas were identified for implementation of restoration measures. This alternative satisfied the project purpose and need, but originally exceeded the local sponsor’s fiscal capability. This alternative was initially eliminated from further consideration as was indicated during review of the EA and Draft FONSI. However, this is now the preferred alternative.
A third alternative involved reducing the 12 sites to 4 sites that would have the greatest potential for restoring lost aquatic and terrestrial habitat and maintaining base flood capacity. To arrive at the four sites, the Corps conducted a multiple objective analysis. The analysis evaluated the areas on a number of elements including institutional recognition (national laws and regulations specific to the area), public recognition (environmental and economic value), and technical recognition (importance of spring creeks, spawning habitat, and eagle nesting). Additional analysis included the potential for channel creation for fisheries restoration, riparian island preservation and restoration, fish habitat creation, and spring creek restoration. It also included specific input from the scoping process, local input, and considerations of property ownership and cultural resources. The 4 sites selected were areas 1, 4, 9, and 10. This alternative satisfied the project purpose and need and was determined to be within the local sponsor’s financial capability. Because this alternative would satisfy the project purpose and need and be within the local sponsor’s financial ability, the Corps selected it as the preferred alternative in the Draft FONSI. It has now been eliminated from further consideration in lieu of a larger restoration project, providing greater benefits.
Under the "no action" alternative, Alternative 4, the progressive loss of portions of the remaining aquatic and terrestrial habitat between the levees would continue. The Corps determined the "no action" alternative would not meet the purpose of the project or satisfy the need to prevent further loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat and restore portions of habitat already lost. Although the "no action" alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative, the "no action" alternative would, by default, become the preferred alternative should the project not proceed to the construction phase.
The EA, along with appendices, which included a Biological Assessment, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, Cultural Resource Evaluation and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation, was distributed for public review during the period March 5 through April 6, 1999. The Corps received and responded to 7 comment letters. The comments were incorporated into our findings as a supplement to the EA and included in our evaluation. Those comments, incorporated as additions to or modifications of the EA, are noted in the attached Comment Response Package.
During an alternative formulation briefing and site visit in October 1999 with Corps of Engineers Headquarters (HQUSACE) personnel, discussions arose regarding expanding the area of the proposed project from 5 miles to encompass a 22-mile stretch. A recommendation was made to consider using the cost and benefit information gathered for the 5-mile study area (presented in the report as the Initially Proposed Plan) as a proxy for the entire 22-mile reach. The rationale is that the engineering measures that would be used had already been identified, the environmental impacts and benefits of the management measures and the construction process had been considered, and the construction costs had been developed. From this information, the Corps could use site-specific information to formulate a plan to restore an expanded area. The plan developed by the Corps is presented as the Progressive Plan in the Feasibility Report.
The project is expected to be of increasing benefit as additional sites are approved, funded, and constructed. The proposal to include additional sites is consistent with the project’s objectives. Our project purpose will be enhanced through additional reestablishment of the river channel stability, protection of the remaining diverse habitat, and restoration of the diversity and sustainability of degraded habitats.
The attached EA was centered on the evaluation of environmental restoration measures. These same tools will be utilized at additional locations selected for construction in the project area. Since this project is designed with an adaptive management component built in, the type of tools used at each subsequent site will be greatly influenced by the success of the tools implemented in the first four sites. Monitoring is an important aspect of this project and results will be incorporated into future site development. Supplemental environmental documentation and coordination will be completed for each additional site as they are selected. This will include public notification, and compliance with the Clean Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Endangered Species Act; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; and the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as other applicable statutes.
The National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations require Federal agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of their actions. Cumulative impacts are defined as the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what other agency or person undertakes the other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1506.7). For the environmental restoration measures being proposed under this project, any non-beneficial impacts to water quality, air quality, aesthetics, recreation, aquatic and terrestrial species and habitat due to construction will be minor and short-term. Cumulative impacts considered to be positive are improved water quality through reduced velocities and stabilization of the channel, reduced erosion of islands and loss of vegetation, opportunity for the reestablishment of islands and vegetation, and creation of additional habitat for cutthroat trout and other aquatic and terrestrial species.
The Progressive Plan of this project includes an important and innovative element for addressing the cumulative effects, that is, adaptive management. Adaptive management allows cumulative effects to not only be analyzed now, but also to be reevaluated during each subsequent construction effort within the 22-mile project reach. Since the river dynamics are constantly changing the environment, adaptive management is an excellent way to address current and future cumulative effects, positive and negative. This type of progressive planning and analysis requires that the traditional one-time cumulative analysis be expanded to an ongoing effort. Adaptive management, by implementing detailed, specific analysis and monitoring of each site location, as it is added, allows for continuing confirmation that project actions are beneficial.
I have taken into consideration the technical aspects of the project, best scientific information available, public comment, and determinations of the EA. Based on this information, I have determined that the proposed action would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
 |
/signed/
Richard P. Wagenaar
Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer |
COMMENT RESPONSE PACKAGE
JACKSON HOLE, WYOMING
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
Letter from Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, March
29, 1999
Response
Letter from Edward. R. and Shirley J. Cheramy, March
30, 1999
Response
Letter from Sewell Partners, April 2, 1999
Response
Letter from U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bur. of Land
Management, Apr. 6, 1999
Response
Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
April 5, 1999
Response
Letter from Wyoming Game and Fish Department, April
9, 1999
Response
Letter from Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality
Response
Letter from U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Jun. 12, 2000
Response
Letter from Wyoming Game and Fish Department, June
13, 2000
Response
Letter from U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bur. of Land
Management, Jun. 14, 2000
Response
Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
June 14, 2000
Response
Letter from, and response to, Mark Vandenbroeke
Letter from Ed and Shirley Cheramy, May 30,
2000
Response
Return to the Feasibility Report