________________________________________
I'd like to welcome everybody to this session, and thanks for Tuning in. You know back in the old days when budgets were small the bin soil conservation service wasn't concerned with being in a dip in civil position with environmental matters. We were more concerned with completing the simple task of solving erosion problems and helping our clients to address other conservation needs. We rarely, if ever were challenged on environmental issues. No one but our clients really knew who we were we mostly provided technical support with limited cost share. We worked on anyone's radar because everyone -- everything that we did was on beneficial to the environmental and therefore environmental compliance wasn't that important and received very little attention. So let's fast forward to today. Program budgets are approaching $4 Billion and we find that agency actions are increasingly being looked at under the microscope. In the era of government transparency, diversified clientele, expanded cost share programs and interest in how the government spends the taxpayer's money, it's important that NRCS pay ever closer attention to in complying with environmental requirements. And to ensure that NRCS conducts its business in an economic passion. Compliance with the environmental requirements protect not only NRCS, but also protects our clients from legal entanglements. So, as stated in the description for this webinar, this will lay the groundwork for you to understand the origins and legal requirements for in RCS office requirements and how those requirements are achieved. Primary topics include scoping of relevant resorts -- resource concerns. Federal actions versus nonfederal actions and the relationship of NRCS planning process and in value mental -- environmental areas. So one of the questions I like to ask folks when I provide these kind of trainings is who you really work for. And I ask them to ponder that for a few minutes and we jot those responses down on a flip chart. And typically the answers I get are, include, the federal government, Congress, USDA, NRCS, I work for the environment, some say my supervisor. Some say a higher power. I have also say folks say they work for their clients which are farmers and ranchers and others. Some say taxpayers of the United States, and then some response saying I work for myself. So, in our quest to reach consensus on this question who do you really work for, let us review the brief functions of the federal government. And they are in three branches of this government tree. One is the Legislative black -- branch and they are charged with making the laws, then there is the Judicial branch whose primary function is to interpret the laws made by the legislative branch. And then we have the Executive which works to execute the laws. So one way to answer the questions is to look where our compensation comes from. Now arguably you could say that the taxpayers fund the government and they are the root source of our compensation. But in reality the funds are entrusted to and is treated by the federal government. I think we can all agree that we don't make the laws, and, we don't interpret the laws, so we must work for the Executive branch. Now as a federal employee of the Executive branch, we have a responsibility to execute the laws passed by the Congress, spend the taxpayers money wisely and provide service to our clients. We work for the Executive branch of the federal government, the USDA, the NRCS. And the farmers, ranchers, timber producers and other constituents, those folks are our clients. So I think it is important to understand exactly who we work for, because I think it directs how we provide our assistance. So, in order for us to execute our federal responsibilities it's important to understand the framework for those responsibilities. Now, Environmental Compliance deals with laws, regulations, policies and agency guidance. The laws are based on the regulations on which the policy is built. The agency guidance, in our case, bulletins instructions, handbooks, etc. that we follow every day are based on our policies. So what are the differences between these various elements and, how do they affect our work? Laws are passed by some legislative bodies. In our case, it's usually Congress. They both authorize and limit federal access. NRCS has a fairly large amount of authorizing legislation starting with the soil and conservation act that was passed in 1935 through the most recent farm bill. Keep in mind, that if you can't find it in the law, if the action isn't authorized, you can't legally do it. As a federal employee. The only authority the Executive branch has besides the U.S. Constitution is that which is passed by Congress in the form of statutory law. Next, we have rules that are promulgated by federal agencies by the administrative procedures act. And this is a rulemaking process in order to carry out laws passed by Congress. These layout the ways in which the agency will implement the laws like EQIP and CSP laws and once they pass through Congress they are called regulations. However if there are conflicts between a regulation and a law, the law will always trump the regulations since that is the source of the authority. Regulations have the force and effect of law. A violation of a law, or regulation is illegal and potentially subject to civic and or criminal penalties. For example, if you advise a client to take an action that violated the Endangered Species Act , that resulted in the take of a listed species, you could be held personally liable and subject to criminal penalties prescribed in the act. What you deal with at the field level is usually agency policy. This is the internal guidance that the agency generates, often based on the agency regulations. That is what is in the general manual, policy does not have the force and effect of law and is trumped by regulation. If the agency departs from its policy, then it could be used to show that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. If so found, then the issue could be remanded back to the agency for corrective actions. So when that happens, typically they may result in a shut down or suspension of program activity until the issue is resolved. So what does this term Arbitrary and Capricious mean? Well, Arbitrary and Capricious is a legal term that basically means that the agency made a clear error in judgment or that there is no rational connection between the facts and the choices the agency made. If you read very many court cases that are brought up against federal agencies, this term comes up over and over again. It is defined by the 9th Circuit as the absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. Webster defines it as a clear error of judgment. And the US code defines it as an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors. So in conservation planning how do we determine what are the relevant factors? Well, we do this during steps 3 and four of the planning process while we are inventorying and analyzing the resource data. And so for today's lesson, we are going to turn on our conservation planning radar. And you see that there are a multitude of resource concerns and special environmental concerns to choose from. Now you'll notice the items in red on our radar scope are the swap up of resource concerns. And the once lettered in white are special environmental concerns. -- Concerns.. Now it's important to note for the most part these special environmental concerns are the result of a law, a regulation or an executive order. So when we look at our radar scope, this is a, scoping is the process that helps us ensure that the real problems are identified early, properly studied and that issues of no concerns, for example not relevant, do not consume our time and planning efforts. So let's see how we can use our radar scope to determine those relevant factors. So in order to use the radar, we need to know what RADAR is. So RADAR is an acronym for radio detecting and ranging and basically if RADAR sends out a signal and the reflections coming back or the echoes are displayed to detect and range various items. In our case, we are going to use this RADAR to detect and range research -- resource concerns. And it's also interesting to note that the range of various resource concerns can be different, depending on the nature of that resource concern. For example, soil erosion may be totally within a field or farm boundary, but wildlife habitat may range far beyond that or the source of the water quality program may be several miles upstream. So here is an excerpt from a scoping exercise that illustrates how resource concerns are determined to be relevant. Now you will notice in the green area is planning step 3 where we look at resources. And then the rat or pink area is step 4 which is analyzing data and benchmarking our conditions. So I'm going to walk you through these three examples. The first concern is cultural resources. And we ask the question, is it present or not? And we set in this case check it is present, we detected it ask the question what is the extent or location or range of the cultural resource? So the range is, it is three acres adjacent to a stream in the southwest corner of pastor number three. What is it? It is a Civil War campsite recorded on the National Registry of Historic Places . So we ask the question, is it relevant to our proposed action? In this case we say no, it's not, and the reason for that is that no undertakings are being proposed. So, at this point, cultural resources can be moved off of our radar screen. We have documented that we have looked at it, assessed it, and we no longer need to carry it forward through the planning process. The next example is migratory birds. We detected migratory birds habitats, and we ranged at 60 for acres in pastor number five. What is it? It's summer nesting habitat for multiple grassland species. Ask the question, is it relevant to the proposed action? The answer in this case was no, and the reason why, because it was a prescribed burn schedule outside of the nesting season, therefore not affecting migratory birds. We can move migratory boards -- birds off our screen and don't have to further consider them in our planning process. The third example is the Riparian area. We did detect a Riparian area it is for miles adjacent to Rock Creek, what is it it's a five acre Cottonwood Gallery with a rating of seven, is it relevant to our proposed action, we said yes it is. The reason why, it was a CRP return to grazing and there was a potential to affect the water quality function of that Riparian area. So in summary we looked at three resource concerns. We scoped to of those resource concerns out of our planning process. And the key thing here is that we documented the reasons why. We documented the reasons why they are in, or why they are out. Now one thing to note here is that the way we got migratory birds moved off our radar screen was through mitigation. Many people typically think of mitigation as compensating for some adverse effect. When in reality, mitigation consists of an multitude of things. This is a sequencing process that we should go through as we develop our conservation plans. The first is usually avoiding. Can we avoid the impact altogether by not taking an action or parts of an action? Can we avoid by move it -- by moving a proposed action to a different location, for example outside of the floodplain. Or can we move the timing of implementation to avoid impact such as we did for migratory birds and prescribed burning. The next strategy is minimizing impacts by minimizing the degree or magnitude of action in its implementation. Thirdly, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of an action and then as a last resort, compensation or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing a substitute resource or environment. So mitigation is our primary method of dealing with most of the environmental special environmental concerns. As we looked into further lessons, and we start detailing procedures for various environmental concerns such as floodplains, endangered species, etc. You will notice that most of the strategy is to mitigate in some fashion. Whether it's avoiding or all the way down to compensation. So mitigation is an important concept that you need to understand. So now that we know how to boil things down to get to the important resource concerns, how do we put that into practice? Let's talk a little bit about the national environmental policy act. It's umbrella on road legislation that requires federal agencies to follow certain procedures for their action. And it covers a broad range of environmental laws. Now it is a procedural act and that means that it only requires that federal agencies follow an analysis procedure, and it does not Dick Tate any particular results. It was signed into law by President Nixon in 1970 and it resulted in four primary outcomes. First, it declared a national policy to protect the environment. It created the Council of Environmental Quality , that is the body directly under the president that oversees NEPA , develops the NEPA regulations and guidance. Thirdly it required agencies to develop their own regulations on how they would implement NEPA, and NRCS has done so. Our regulations are part of CR seven for 650. -- CFR§650 50. And it sets down regulations for major impacts significantly impacting the environment. So what does that mean? Well, in order to understand what major federal action significantly impacting the environment is, we need to understand what is a federal action. And keep in mind that federal actions or that NEPA only applies to Federal Action . Where there is no Federal Action then NEPA is not a consideration. So, think about what you would consider the sum of NRCS's federal actions. What determines whether it is a Federal Action or not is whether or not NRCS has control over the action. So I have prepared just a little quiz for you, so what I would like you to do is take a look at these two, for, TASS State News agency four, six items and determine which of these is a Federal Action, and which is not. And, just to make sure everybody understands my text here, certifying NRCS practice standard for a state cost share program, the second one is granting a compatible use on a trip to the Wetland Reserve Program easement. The third one is providing cost share through the EQIP program . The fourth one is making a Highly Erodible Land or Wetland Conservation or wetland conservation determination. The fifth one is supporting a wetland reserve program for an easement of a pipeline. And the fifth one is the determination of a Food Security Act approved cropping system.. So let's compare answers. Let's see if your answers match mine. There we go. Okay for the first one certifying an NRCS cost share program. The reason this is not a Federal Action is because NRCS does not control whether or not the standard is followed. The state has chosen to adopt NRCS standards. Now there could be an exception to this, and that would be in the case where NRCS , engineering job approval authority is delegated down to say, a state or district employee. And that approval authority is reliant on the state engineers -- engineer's license to conduct business in that state. But if the state has just decided independently to adopt NRCS standards and administer through their cost share program, typically we would not consider that a Federal Action. The second one, granting a compatible use agreement on a Wetland Reserve Program . Why is this a Federal Action? Because we have control over what compatible uses we allow and which ones we don't. The third one, providing EQIP cost share, is this a Federal Action? Yes, because we are controlling the expenditure of federal funds. The fourth one, making a wetland or Highly Erodible Land or Wetland Conservation determination, is this a federal action, we said no, and the reason why, it is a technical determination. We are not controlling anything, we are just saying, and making a factual determination about what is in the field. It is no different than providing a soils information to an individual. It is what it is. There is no agency position to be made there. The fifth one is subordinating a Wetland Reserve Program easement to allow a pipeline -- pipeline to go to that easement? Is that a federal action, yes, because we can determine whether a pipeline can cross our wetland, we can say yes you can, or no you can't. And the last one is determination of an approved system for the Food Security Act. The reason that is not a Federal Action is that we are just providing again technical information about whether or not it is an improved system. We are not regulating or controlling whether a producer implements that system or not, we are just providing information. So, now that we understand that a Federal Action is tied to the control or responsibilities on behalf of the agency, we need to understand what a Major Federal Action is. Regulations define this that major reinforces but does not have an independent meaning from significantly. So if it has significant effects on the environment and federal control over responsibility exists, then it is a Major Federal Action. And remember, Major Federal Action that have federal -- is an invite him environmental action or EIS. And we also need to know what contacts -- conducts significantly and it is there in the regulations as well. And it is comprised of two components. The first is context, which is basically scale, and then intensities. There are 10 intensity factors and I believe they are found in section O in your environmental worksheet. We have boiled these down. And basically they had to do with many of the special environmental concerns. Wildland scenic rivers, cultural resources, whether or not it is an action that generates a lot of controversy in the community, whether it has unique or known risks, what are the cumulative effects of it? Does it affect public health and safety, etc. So those 10 factors that are included in section O of your 39, this is where they came from. So this significance determination we have to look at the context, we look at it in the fields, we look at it may be within a watershed, there is no significant information context. So we get to decide which context. And then the significance determination, it is not a presence absence, it's not if endangered species are presence, it's not if a floodplain is present, it's automatically significant, it is a decision based on the judgment of the responsible federal official. So here we have an excerpt of an actual planned developed by NRCS. And this is what they said about wildlife, the effects on wildlife, "Wideniing of the emergency spillway will adversely affect wildlife." the question is, is this significant or not? My answer is there is not enough information here to make that determination. In fact, this actually causes me to think about more questions than it answers. I want to know how wide is the emergence, how much wider is the emergency spillway? Where is it? What is the context? What kind of wildlife will be affected? And how will they be affected? So if we expand this example, now, we are looking at where widening the emergency spillway from 100 20 to 186 feet, so we know how much. And it will result in the loss of 10 out of 15 of the last remaining clusters of old growth longleaf pine trees in the watershed. So we know we are losing to thirds of the remaining pine trees, what's the context in the watershed? Furthermore, these clusters are known to provide nesting sites for the endangered Ivory billed woodpecker. So we have context, and we have intensity, and now we can make a determination about whether this may be a significant affect or not. So now that we understand the definition of significance, how do we use the information? Well we use it basically in three places. We use it in the area for categorical exclusion where we are required to review for extraordinary conditions. NRCS has adopted this as extraordinary circumstances. It is also used in the determination of a finding of no significant impact, or an environmental assessment, those to go together. One is the analysis, the 40 EA , the FONSI is the finding. If we find that it is not second -- significant we need to know what significance means.. The third is used in the Environmental Impact Statement and the resulting finding which is a record decision. When we have it a Environmental Impact Statement those are conducted for major federal actions and we have already established that in order for a federal action to be major, it has to have significant impact. You cannot exit the NEPA process without landing on one of these three findings. So, let's briefly take a look at these. First, we have the categorical exclusion, and this is a category of actions that NRCS has demonstrated and CEQ has approved that do not have a significant cumulative in packed on the environment. -- Impact on the environment. So an example of these categories will exclusions, we have five categorical exclusions that are on the books in 1973. In 2010 we got 21 new categorical exclusions approved by CQ. -- CEQ and these are those plans, planting appropriate herbaceous and woody vegetation, again assuming we have reviewed for extraordinary circumstances. And there are a few other sideboards that go along with his such as it has to be according to a conservation planning standard, and that all soil erosion and we will get more into the categorical exclusions when we have the lesson on CTA-52. Another example is plugging and filling excavated drainage ditches, restoring an ecosystem, implementing soil control measures on existing agricultural lands, and implementing water conservation activities on existing agricultural lands. So anytime we are conducting any type of these activities and we have reviewed for extraordinary circumstances, the way we complete the NEPA process is with a categorical exclusion. As I mentioned, the other place that it is used is the finding for an environmental assessment, what is an environmental can assessment? It is a concise public document that provides evidence to determine whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Our regulations prescribe when we will do an environmental assessment. The regulations say for Landon water resource projects in which state and local units of government receive federal technical and financial assistance, or other actions that may be a Major Federal Action. That is our second way of completing the NEPA process. The third and last way of the environmental impact statement, again this is a detailed statement our regulations require an environmental impact statement be used when we have extreme as determined by the environmental evaluation. Any time an action requires congressional action, and -- an EIS is required. And any other major federal actions significantly affecting our environment. So those are when our regulations require an EIS. Now as we look out our regulations they also talk about the use of environmental evaluation. And it is defined as the part of planning that inventories and estimates the effects of alternatives. And it says that the EE applies to all assistance provided by NRCS. So, we go from our regulations to our policy which is in the general madrigal, what does the general manual say? Will the general manual says we are going to follow the national procedures handbook some so if you're getting an idea of the hierarchy we went from our regulation to our policy now the policy refers to a handbook area and also says that we will use the field office tech guide and that the planning standard, the planning process and the planning process outlined in the handbook will be used for all conservation planning. So basically, what this policy is doing is making a handbook, the content of a handbook equal to policy. Normally policy, handbooks provide guidance, but in this case it is my opinion that because the policy requires us to follow the procedures that are outlined in the handbook, a handbook actually is on equal footing with policy from a regulatory perspective. So what does the planning procedures handbook have to say? The planning procedures handbook says that federal law requires NRCS planners to consider the environmental consequences of recommended actions and provide decisions makers information about the actions that might significantly affect the human environment. So here we are starting to see that the planning process and the environmental requirements are woven together. The handbook also says that NRCS is required to conduct an environmental evaluation for all planning and financial assistance. So, if you will recall on your CTA-52 there are five findings that you can make in regards to Stream Visual Assessment Protocol -- NEPA compliance the first one is a decision as to whether or not the decision is a Federal Action. If it's not a National Registry of Historic Places, NEPA does not apply, so we are done. The section -- second option is can action be categorically excluded? We make sure we are any compliance is attached to those, if that is the case, we can document our utilization of that categorical exclusion and the NEPA process is completed. Now the third one and remember we said the only three ways to complete the Dnieper process are the CATX , the environmental assessment and FONSI and Environmental Impact Statement. Now you will notice that we don't prepare too many environmental impact statements, so how do we complete the trend 20 for process when it has already been stated that those are to of the three ways that you can get out of the NEPA process? The way we have done that we have completed national environment a program assessments for every program. And in national impact statement for the watershed program. So the water -- so the pro-idea behind number three is that we analyze the impacts nationally. We have looked at the site specific impact on the CTA-52 and the actions that we are planning to take on the ground are the same affect as those that have been analyzed on a national basis, so we're basically using our site-specific analysis and gearing up to the national program at. The fourth option here which is an option which is becoming more utilized in the last few years and this, the idea behind the fourth method is that we can adopt another agencies EA or EIS and make it our own. So if we have an action that we are proposing that another federal agency has already analyzed an action that is the same or very similar in the impacts are the same or very similar, then we can formally adopt that analysis and not have to reinvent the wheel and re-conduct the analysis. Now the fifth way, the fifth finding that we can make off of our environmental worksheet is that the action has not been sufficiently analyzed, it is not covered by one hour quarter got -- categories. It's not covered in a programmatic EA therefore we are going to have to do a site-specific environmental analysis of our impact statement for that action.. So, as we review, kind of the structure here is the pyramid again with all of the blanks filled in. Again, at the field level you are mostly relying on the general manual. I also want to introduce you to the not only the national planning procedures handbook but the National Environment Compliance Handbook , but it also provides guidance on how to conduct these pieces. And as you go on down we have NRCS regulations more CQ regulations and then the national policy act at the bottom. Normally in the classroom settings when I provide this I like to walk people through and list the planning steps or the planning process, I think that is a good exercise for people to remember what those steps are, you know once you ingrain that in your brain, it causes a thought process that otherwise you don't conduct. Kind of the take-home message here is though that the environmental requirements that are contained on the CTA-52 are really nothing more than the products of the NRCS process. And I think when Andree talked about reviews and some of the efficiencies we have observed, it's my opinion that the problem is not with an hour environment a protocol. The problem most of the time is that we are not conducting the conservation planning process and documenting the results from that process.. So in summary, the EE just documents that process there are additional areas to use the process. Again by fully vetting, identifying the relevant factors and addressing those issues, we are not only protecting the agency but we are protecting our clientele as well. And once the environmental evaluation planning process is completed, the conservation planner has a comprehensive planning and comparison of the alternatives, what are the positives, what are the negatives. All the resources and environmental concerns, knowledge about any permits the landowner might need. Information about other issues that may require consultation with other issues such as cultural issues or endangered species. And sharing this information with the landowner, it helps the land owner make an in fire -- informed decision. So just to review what we have covered today. We have looked at the differences between laws regulations and policies. We have presented how to determine what are the relevant resources -- resource areas which once we carry forward and which ones we leave behind. The difference between a Federal Action and a Major Federal Action. We have looked at the requirements that NRCS regulations, policy, and guidance. And that the Environmental Evaluation documents the outcomes of the NRCS planning process. As far as informational, additional information sources go, I would refer you to the general manual which resents our policy on compliance with NEPA. Also we have the National Environment Policy Act and the newly released National Planning Procedures Handbook. So at this point, this concludes the presentation I appreciate your patience and I would like to take this time to open it up for any questions you might have. 
________________________________________
We do have one question that came in through the notes. Briefly, what is required to adopt another agencies NEPA documents? 
________________________________________
Yeah that looks like Travis James ask that question. Travis the short answer is whatever clearance and public review was required to clear that document the first time out is what is required to clear it for an adoption. So, if it is, if it is an pole EIS you use the same procedures to request comments and clear an EIS .. Usually it's just a notice in the local media. Now there are some shortcuts that can be taken if we are a cooperating agency. And I would be happy to visit with you in more detail about that. But the short answer is the same procedures. Now, one thing we cannot do, we cannot adopt another agencies category exclusion just to make that point those need to be hours. 
________________________________________
I guess I would like to add that you can check in the national in the National Planning Procedures Handbook in paragraph 610.83 for more information. 
________________________________________
I have a question from someone who is asking if most of our compliances fall under a category exclusion? 
________________________________________
Yes generally they do, Eric. You would need to go through and analyze it, some states I know they actually have done that analysis. We have not done it at headquarters there may be some variations and how the agencies have practices. That's something that is done at the state level.
________________________________________
And I can provide an example of what one-state has developed. I'm not sure if it includes all of the EQIP practices. But what they did is they went down through the list of practices in section -- section 4 of their manual. And they did identified which of the areas they were likely to fall within CATX. They sent that out to the field offices to assist them in determining when a CATX would be appropriate, when it might not be. 
________________________________________
We have another question coming through the notes. What about old EIS or EA when do they expire or are no longer relevant? 
________________________________________
Generally there is a five year statute of limitations on those and that doesn't necessarily mean that a new one has to be prepared or supplemented. But at a minimum, it is for to five years old it is recommended that it be reviewed and reaffirmed.
________________________________________
Yes, I guess basically the issues are if there is a substantial change in the action that is relevant to environmental concerns, or if there is significant new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns, then you would need to do a supplement. Otherwise, you could continue to rely on the original EA or EIS 
________________________________________
I saw another question come in whether CTA planning is a federal action or a nonfederal action. 
________________________________________
Matthew I'm gonna let you answer that since we already talked about it. 
________________________________________
Well if it's technical assistance only we have determined that that is not a Federal Action, because we did not have control. If we provide a producer with five alternatives, we have no control over which of those alternatives, if any you implement, we have no control over if the -- he implements those according to our practice standards or not. So the answer is no, technical assistance only is not considered to be a Federal Action. 
________________________________________
We have another question through the notes. On the EIS what would be an example of a congressional action ? 
________________________________________

________________________________________
That was primarily put in there to cover watershed projects that required congressional approval before they could be implemented. We rarely run into that anymore. 
________________________________________
The watershed program specifies that if anything is over $5 million requires congressional approval, so that was the trigger for an pole EIS. And it's quite amazing how many of those came in at $499,000 [ Laughing ]
________________________________________
And if we were doing a lot of additional new planning in today's environment, many of our projects would obviously have reached that ceiling. But we really don't do much watershed planning these days. Where we would be asking for watershed program to be authorized.
________________________________________
I have another question through the notes. Do we need to do a EQIP night when we do ATL or wetland determinations?
________________________________________
Federal Action -- Andree you want me to take that? No that is a technical determination if you remember a 50 to is required for planning so if we are just doing the technical determination is it ATL, a wetland is not required. If we were planning the cropping system or planning that any mitigation associated with a wetland conversion, then yes, the 50 to would be required at that point, because we are into planning
________________________________________
Okay and one more, but DWP damage survey program doesn't look anything like the CTA-52 and there is no place to reference categorical exclusions. So we use the CTA-52 instead of the 50 to instead of the invite you environ Mason will environmental worksheet. And if it applies in most case we will, just go ahead and handwrite that in, make a note as to which that it applies and which one.
________________________________________
And another question, does NEPA trump the Clean Water Act and four on four? 
________________________________________
Dnieper dozen Trump the Cleanwater Act and 404 . They both have to be met. If you were going to do a project and you know, it will be relevant to the determination significance. But in most cases where the permit is issued, you will be mitigating any adverse impact to a level that you would avoid an EIS . Matthew want to add anything to that? 
________________________________________
Yeah I guess I'm just a little confused on how they would conflict. NEPA is the umbrella of legislation, remember it requires you to go through a procedure. So it really includes all other environmental laws to be reviewed. I guess I am not understanding what kind of conflicts that you would anticipate between NEPA and compliance with the Cleanwater Act and 404. And in fact, the core would have to conduct a NEPA analysis before they could issue their permit. That's about the best I can do without one.
________________________________________
Yeah, if you want to follow up please give us a call I'd be happy to do that or else call in.
________________________________________
And another one. Do we need to complete a seat CTA-52 prior to providing plans for a conservation plan?
________________________________________
Yes, you would need to. Because you need to make sure that while the TSP and partners are not required to do for conservation activity plans, we still have to make sure that there is no adverse effects on anything occurring by the plan that they put together, even if it's a practice to plan.
________________________________________
For easements programs where a conservation plan and an Major Federal Action do we do a CTA-52 for the program, plan or for both?
________________________________________
You should be doing your CTA-52 as a part of your planning process, and I realize the 52 does not have hazardous material specifically listed on it. And you need to do that review before we make the decision to take an easement. But really, you need to do the EE initially you need to start that process white when you are considering whether or not to take the easement, because there could be things on that property that would not make it the best piece of land for us to take into the program. And certainly, if you're doing any type of a restoration plan like in the case of W RP, you would want to do that.
________________________________________
Okay. When a consultation has not been completed the area wants to obligate the funds, which finding would be selected, we have been recommending finding number five until a consultation is completed. Once completed we recommend changing finding to number five.
________________________________________
Yeah I think there's a couple of different ways you can do that. I'm guessing finding number five is that one that says the action has not been adequately analyzed. 
________________________________________
Correct.
________________________________________
You know you could do that and not change it or you could just not make a finding. I mean technically you should not be obligating funds until all the environmental stuff is wrapped up. There is another thought that as long as you can obligate the funds as long as you don't break around and commit irretrievable resources, so I would say either way is fine. Andre, do you have an opinion on that? 
________________________________________
Yeah, I actually already spoke with Tom about it and, I would prefer to have it be the final finding, unless the binding can contains a series of planning steps and you want to do a separate EE for each of them, but normally I would wanted to be the final finding that would allow us to go forward and take an action. That's what ultimately would be used, how you use it would be determined how you use it best in your office. 
________________________________________
Also remember that there is a checkbox on the CTA-52 where action is still pending. So that should be kind of your red flag to the RF O that not everything is completed. And wrapped up. So, that makes sense to me, that the RFO would make the finding until all those hanging chats are accounted for.
________________________________________
Actually there is a question from Michael Sampson's to me, and you in section O you mentioned to -- tends significant circumstances where there really are not 10.. 
________________________________________
Go ahead on that one if you want to. 
________________________________________
Sure, we actually combined CEQ does actually have 10 separate ones. To of them are combined in the second to last bulletin about special concerns because CEQ usually separates historic properties from an endangered species. And then the other one that they have left out on our EE is that impacts may be both beneficial and adverse.. So they are basically telling us not to forget to look at it both ways. So, you have got the gist of what you need right here, and you don't really need to worry about going outside of these unless you are doing a FONSI something. 
________________________________________
CATX for NEPA is different is that correct Westmark 
________________________________________
No that's not technically correct there are not typically exclusions, so no they are not the same. I will however tell you that we have been working with the water management Center to get a nationwide 23 permit, which is a nationwide permit that recognizes all of our categorical exclusions. So that kind of takes care of that in that manner but we don't have that completed yet.
________________________________________
The core has to publish their final rule yet, and in addition we would also likely see conditions applied why the various core regions in the nationwide permit, so there still may be some variations even when we get that nationwide permit.
________________________________________
And another question that came just to me. You mentioned that we cannot adopt another agencies CATX, but if the other agency finds a project is CATX and in completing the CATX we can currently determine the project meets NRCS CATX are our NEPA obligations met? 
________________________________________
I'm not sure I understand the question but the answer I will give you if it meets the requirements of our CATX for our purposes our need to comply is met.
________________________________________
Why should the planners select the finding number to -- two instead of finding number three? 
________________________________________
Now that is a good question. The reason for that is that tiering a site-specific site to a national program analysis, if you look at those national programmatic analysis, they are very broad and very general. They cover from the East Coast to West Coast. Using the categorical exclusion, we are on much firmer legal ground than we are adhering to that national programmatic EA. And CEQ doesn't particularly like the way we have our field offices referring -- preparing EA's. Now my opinion if you can CATX it , it's a lot more bulletproof than adhering to one of the programmatic's. 
________________________________________
I totally concur.
________________________________________
And one more question. It says question about CTA-52 versus Endangered Species Act before contract preparation. Finding number five. 
________________________________________
Andree this is very Isaacson , Pennsylvania. 
________________________________________
Hello Barry 
________________________________________
Hello, when I thought of this question long ago I'm technically challenged. But the question if it's US Fish and Wildlife Service, that's likely the in danger species act, so I'm a little uncomfortable obligating funds and checking numbers off.
________________________________________
Yeah we should not be obligating funds. 
________________________________________
Go ahead Andree that was addressed to you. 
________________________________________
I was going to say ideally you shouldn't. I mean, you can do it, because you can also also de-obligate funds . But I would agree with you that is not a good practice. And it would be better to just go ahead and finish the consultation, and hopefully that's a consultation already done in place. So you can just proceed pretty quickly, but if not, I agree that it's better to go ahead and finish the consultation before obligating funds.
________________________________________
I was just concerned, my original question with the US Fish and Wildlife Service which raises a red flag. 
________________________________________
Matthew, do you want to add anything? 
________________________________________
You know I think as long, clearly, we could proceed up to the point of firing up the bulldozer and breaking ground. I think we are legally in good shape there you know again our preference is to have all the consultations and all the environmental compliance requirements completed and wrapped up before we would obligate funds. I know how it works in reality, though and we can't always do that. 
________________________________________
Right and I agree with Matthew. Legally for environmental compliance purposes we can go ahead and do everything up until groundbreaking. But in terms of our financial management, and the scrutiny that we get for de-obligating funds , I would try to minimize that kind of thing.
________________________________________
I mean the reality is that for we are doing the plans, writing the contracts and been doing the environmental planning after the fact. That happens a lot. But that is not what we would consider optimal timing. Okay. We have another question on the line.
________________________________________
Andree this is Tom Warren from California I'm the one that asked that question about selecting number five . If we have another species in California and 125 shared California for endangered species. So a lot of our projects do involve a consultation with Frith and wild service and we do have a lot of tribes here, that's another cultural issue. So we have been recommending, I have been recommending finding number five until we get it done. Otherwise we can't obligate unless we have the CTA-52 completed with the finding. So if there is another counsel that we can get that would be great. 
________________________________________
You know I think that works. It is a matter of like Barry said, you just and like Matthew said and I said and you already know this, you just have to make sure the consultation is done before you implement. And as long as the NEPA requirements have been satisfied if you want to work it that way in your state, it will work. It works, but you just have to make sure that they go back and change that plaza and get that consultation done. 
________________________________________
We stated that, I'm just getting pushback from some offices that they don't want to do it that way. That's why I asked the question they would like me to ask it officially and get something back on that. 
________________________________________
That is a state call, then.
________________________________________
Okay, good, thank you. 
________________________________________
Sure.
________________________________________
Thanks for the time.
________________________________________
And we have another question through the notes. It is my understanding that CATX may be used if all actions in the plan is covered by that CATX. If not, more than one CATX can be used , correct? Or it's all either Caesar nothing. 
________________________________________
Yeah it is all categorical exclusions or nothing. It's true that you can use multiple CAD axes though. You can use multiple CATX is but you can't just use the portion of it as a Categorial Exclusion. And will be power points be placed on a site accessible by all. 
________________________________________
Yeah in the next couple of weeks as we start we will be putting them on the training website, the webinar website, so you'll be able to access them there, they will also be available either through the SharePoint site the webinar training SharePoint site. And there is also a website that is publicly available and that will be posted on both of those sites. 
________________________________________
Yeah, I guess Andree we can get Bill home and in here to answer this question, but I'm not sure if he webinar , if they can download the PowerPoint slides from the webinar that will be posted. 
________________________________________
We will make sure those power points will be accessible and you will be able to see those as well as do the webinar. 
________________________________________
Yeah, okay. 
________________________________________
Matthew, Andree , it is possible to download those webinars from both the S&T website and the biology's SharePoint site. And I want to take this opportunity to to thank you and congratulate you for an outstanding webinar. The level of discussion in this webinar was unprecedented and is obviously a topic of great interest to our customers. And I'm going to put you on the spot and asked when do you think you will be in the position to deliver the next part of this training? 
________________________________________
Right now, we are looking at about six weeks from now. Because we want to make sure that we have the revised CTA-52 available for everybody to use before we do that training. 
________________________________________
Excellent, thanks again. 
________________________________________
Thank you.
________________________________________
At the moment I am seeing no further questions. 
________________________________________
Great will I just want to thank everybody for joining us today. If you all have thoughts about specific things, again that you would like to hear us cover, please let me know and if you have suggestions for us on ways to improve these presentations or of the EE process I would love to hear those as well. Thank you Matthew , for the outstanding presentation today. 
________________________________________
I would just like to close out and say that if there are additional questions that come to mind, please don't hesitate to contact myself or Andree . You have our contact information there.
________________________________________
All right, thank you for the educational presentation and thank you all in the audience so much for joining us today. This concludes our program. You may now disconnect. [ Event concluded ] This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately.