FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CITY OF BILOXI NEW PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX PROJECT DELAUNEY-ESTERS PARCELS HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI FEMA-1604-DR-MS The City of Biloxi has applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for assistance with a construction project for the proposed new Biloxi Public Works Complex in Biloxi, Harrison County, Mississippi. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the City of Biloxi Public Works Department utilized six buildings at four locations in the city. Hurricane Katrina destroyed four of the buildings: The Fleck Wire Building at 275 Oak Street, the Old City Barn at 311 Division Street, the Old City Barn Quonset Hut at 311 Division Street, and the Lighthouse Fishing Dock Maintenance Facility at Lee Street and Bayview Street. Total combined area of the four destroyed building was approximately 50,503 square feet. These four buildings were located within the 100-year floodplain or within the 500-year floodplain (Flood Zones AE and B, respectively). Damages to the buildings exceeded the 50% repair/replacement ratio, meeting FEMA’s criteria for demolition and replacement. In addition, two Public Works buildings at 780 Esters Boulevard suffered damages below the 50% repair/replacement ratio: the Public Works Building, fence and block wall, and the Public Works Garage. FEMA proposes to provide assistance for this project through the Public Assistance Program (PA) under the Presidential Disaster Declaration FEMA-1604-DR-MS. In accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for FEMA, Subpart B, Agency Implementing Procedures, Part 10.9, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared pursuant to Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the regulations promulgated by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The purpose of the EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the construction project, and to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In the EA process, FEMA considered two alternatives, the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the City of Biloxi proposes to replace and consolidate the destroyed and damaged Public Works facilities by constructing four new buildings on Parcels 1410F-03-104.000, 1410F-03-105.001, 1410F-06-018.000, 1410F-06-019.000, 1410F-06-020.000, 0001410F-06-021.000, and 1410F-06-022.000, located at the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection of Delauney Street and Esters Boulevard in Biloxi, Mississippi. The new buildings will include a 24,200-square foot Public Works facility building, a 16,200-square foot warehouse, a 6,300-square foot shop building, and a 10,400-square foot vehicle maintenance building. The 4-acre proposed project location is currently not located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). However, based on the new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) released by FEMA which will become effective later this year, the property will be in an SFHA with a base flood elevation of 17’ above mean sea level (amsl). The new buildings will be constructed in accordance with the new DFIRMs. This proposed project as described in the EA was evaluated for any potential significant adverse impacts to existing land use, water resources (surface water, groundwater, waters of the United States, and floodplains), air quality, noise, biological resources (vegetation, fish and wildlife, State and Federally-listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat), and cultural resources. It was also evaluated for safety and hazardous materials issues as well as for disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low income populations. FINDINGS Based on input and consultations with Federal and State resource agencies, and other identified sources documented in the attached EA and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act FEMA regulations (44 CFR Part 10) for environmental considerations, and executive orders on floodplains (EO 11988), wetlands (EO 11990) and environmental justice (EO 12898), FEMA has found that the proposed project with the prescribed mitigation measures as defined in the EA will have no significant impact on the natural or human environment. As a result of this Finding of No Significant Impact, an EIS will not be prepared and the proposed project with prescribed conditions may proceed. If a change in the scope of work occurs, the State and FEMA must be notified to evaluate if the proposed change would alter the potential impacts on the environment. Recommended: Approved _____________________________ ______________________________ Michael Grisham Date J. Randy Walker Date FEMA Environmental Liaison Officer FEMA Infrastructure Branch Chief FEMA-1604-DR-MS 1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….. 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED………………………………………………….. 1 3.0 ALTERNATIVES…………………………………………………………2 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS………………………. 3 4.1 Geology and Soils……………………………………………….. 5 4.2 Water Resources…………………………………………………. 5 4.2.1 Surface Water…………………………………………….. 5 4.2.2 Floodplains……………………………………………… 6 4.2.3 Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands…………………. 6 4.3 Hazardous Materials……………………………………………. 7 4.4 Transportation ……..…………………………………………… 8 4.5 Environmental Justice ………………………………………….. 8 4.6 Air Quality……………………………………………………….. ..9 4.7 Noise……………………………………………………………….. 9 4.8 Biological Resources…………………………………………….. 10 4.9 Cultural Resources……………………………………………….10 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS…………………………………………….. 11 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT…………………………………………........11 7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS………………………...12 8.0 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………….12 Appendix A Figures Appendix B Agency Coordination Appendix C Public Notice of Draft EA ABFE Advisory Base Flood Elevation ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation amsl above mean sea level APE Area of Potential Effects BMP Best Management Practice BFE Base Flood Elevation CAA Clean Air Act CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB decibel DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act MDAH Mississippi Department of Archives and History MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality MDMR Mississippi Department of Marine Resources NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NISTAC Nationwide Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory O3 ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb Lead PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns PM10 particulate mater less than 10 microns RCPs reinforced concrete pipes SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile Organic Compound 1.0 INTRODUCTION Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the southeastern coast of Louisiana and the southwestern coast of Mississippi on August 29, 2005, with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph. Hurricane-force winds extended outward up to 105 miles from the center of the storm. Coastal storm surge flooding of 20 to 30 feet above normal tide levels, along with large and dangerous battering waves, occurred near and to the east of where the center of the storm made landfall. Widespread damage occurred, including beach erosion and damage and/or destruction of homes and infrastructure. A Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA-1604-DR-MS, was subsequently signed for Hurricane Katrina, making 81 Mississippi counties (including Harrison County)eligible for FEMA Public Assistance. The City of Biloxi has submitted an application for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding under FEMA’s Public Assistance program being administered in response to FEMA-1604-DR-MS for the proposed Biloxi Public Works Facility Construction Project. In accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 93-288, as amended and implementing regulations at 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 206, FEMA is required to review the environmental effects of the proposed action prior to making a funding decision. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with FEMA’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations found in 44 CFR Part 10. 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the City of Biloxi Public Works Department utilized six buildings at four locations in the city, totaling approximately 82,173 square feet. Four Biloxi Public Works buildings totaling approximately 50,503 square feet were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina: the Fleck Wire Building at 275 Oak Street, which was used for Public Works Storage and Police Department seized and special equipment; the Old City Barn at 311 Division Street, which was used for storage of large equipment utilized for water and sewer projects; the Old City Barn Quonset Hut at 311 Division Street, which was used for storage of Mardi Gras stands; and the Lighthouse Fishing Dock Maintenance Facility at Lee Street and Bayview Street, which was used for the storage of Port and Harbor equipment. These four buildings were located within the 100-year floodplain or within the 500-year floodplain (Flood Zones AE and B, respectively). Damages to the buildings exceeded the 50% repair/replacement ratio, meeting FEMA’s criteria for demolition and replacement. Two other Biloxi Public Works buildings sustained damage during Hurricane Katrina: the Public Works Building, fence and block wall at 780 Esters Boulevard and the Public Works Garage, also at 780 Esters Boulevard. Biloxi Public Works currently operates out of the two remaining damaged Public Works buildings (totaling 31,670 square feet) located at 780 Esters Boulevard. Due to the reduction in space, city equipment is stored outdoors at several lots throughout the city, causing a hardship. A new, consolidated Public Works Complex is required to replace the area and capacity lost due to Hurricane Katrina. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES This section describes the alternatives that were considered in addressing the purpose and need stated in Section 2 above. Two alternatives were evaluated: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative, construction of the new Biloxi Public Works facility. Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the City of Biloxi would not rebuild a new Public Works facility. The Public Works Department would continue to operate out of the two existing damaged buildings, causing a hardship. Alternative 2: Construct the Biloxi Public Works Facility (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the City of Biloxi proposes to replace and consolidate the destroyed and damaged Public Works facilities by constructing four new buildings on parcels located at the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection of Delauney Street and Esters Boulevard in Biloxi, Mississippi. The new buildings will include a 24,200-square foot Public Works facility building, a 16,200-square foot warehouse, a 6,300-square foot shop building, and a 10,400-square foot vehicle maintenance building. Construction of New Facility The project location consists of approximately 4 acres located on seven parcels in Section 27, Township 7 South, Range 9 West, Harrison County, Mississippi, latitude 30Ί23?57.6? North, longitude 88Ί53?16.8? West. The Tax Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for the site are 1410F-03-104.000, 1410F-03-105.001, 1410F-06-018.000, 1410F-06-019.000, 1410F-06-020.000, 0001410F-06-021.000, and 1410F-06-022.000. The site is bounded on the north by a vacant wood-frame building at 236 Delauney Street, and residences at 229 Delauney Street and at 235 Lameuse Street; on the east by residences at 217, 223, 225, 227 and 233 Lameuse Street and by commercial (health care) offices at 209 and 201 Lameuse Street; on the south by Esters Boulevard, then railroad tracks and then the Harrison County Health Department at 761 Esters Boulevard and Cableone Inc. at 786 Esters Boulevard; and on the west by F & F Distributing at 211 Magnolia Street and residences at 222, 224 and 228 Magnolia Street. The project site is not currently located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or Coastal Barrier Resources System (RS). However, FEMA has released the new DFIRMs that will become effective later this year, and the property will then be located in the SFHA with a base flood elevation of 17’ amsl. The new buildings will be constructed in compliance with the new DFIRMs. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS The following table summarizes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and conditions or mitigation measures to offset those impacts. Following the summary table, any areas where potential impacts were identified will be discussed in greater detail. Table 1: Summary of Site Reconnaissance Observations Affected Environment Impacts Mitigation Geology and Soils No impacts to geology. Short-term impacts to soil during the construction period. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as installing silt fences and revegetating bare soils immediately upon completion of construction to stabilize soils. No Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006) is required since the project is located within city limits. Surface Water Short-term impacts to surface water would occur during the construction period due to soil erosion. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be obtained prior to construction; appropriate best management practices (BMPs), such as installing silt fences and revegetating bare soils, would minimize runoff. Floodplains Project site is located in a Proposed Special Flood Hazard Area, with base flood elevation of 17 feet amsl. Finished floor elevation of the proposed structures will be built to at least 17 feet amsl, to comply with federal floodplain regulations. Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands No waters of the United States or wetlands occur on the proposed project site. None Transportation Minor short-term increase in the volume of construction traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Construction vehicles and equipment would be stored on-site during project construction and appropriate signage would be posted on affected roadways. Public Health and Safety No impacts to public health and safety are anticipated. All construction activities would be performed using qualified personnel and in accordance with the standards specified in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations; appropriate signage and barriers would be in place prior to construction activities to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities. Hazardous Materials A localized area of surficial soil contamination was identified on Parcel B of the project location during a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Neel-Schaffer, Inc. in July 2008. The affected soil (which was impacted by motor oil) will be removed and properly disposed of in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Socioeconomic Resources No adverse socioeconomic impacts are anticipated. None Environmental Justice No disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations is anticipated. None Air Quality Short-term impacts to air quality would occur during the construction period; no adverse long-term impacts are anticipated. Construction contractors would be required to water down construction areas when necessary; fuel-burning equipment running times would be kept to a minimum; engines would be properly maintained. Noise Short-term impacts to noise would occur at the proposed project site during the construction period. Construction would take place during normal business hours. Equipment would be maintained to meet all local, state, and federal noise regulations. Biological Resources There are no listed species or their habitats found on the project site. None Cultural Resources No properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places will be affected. None 4.1 Geology and Soils According to the 1969 Geologic Map of Mississippi”, published by the Mississippi Geological Survey, geologic units at the site have been mapped as undifferentiated Holocene coastal deposits, consisting of sand, loam, gravel and clay. The proposed project site contains soil consisting predominantly of Harleston fine sandy loam (HIA) and Latonia loamy sand (Lt). The Harleston series consists of deep, moderately well drained moderately permeable soils. They formed in marine or stream deposits consisting of thick beds of sandy loam. The Latonia series consists of deep, well drained moderately rapid permeable soils. They formed in marine or alluvial sediments that are loamy in the upper part and sandy in the lower part. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) states Federal agencies must “minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.” Both the Harleston series and the Latonia series are classified as prime farmland within Harrison County (USDA/NRCS, Harrison County office, personal communication with Mr. Tyree Harrington on July 28, 2008). However, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006) is not be required (USDA/NRCS, 2007b) because the project location is located within the city limits of Biloxi in an urban area. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to geology or soils are anticipated because no construction would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to geology are anticipated; short-term impacts to soils are anticipated during the construction period. Appropriate BMPS would be used, such as installing silt fences and revegetating bare soils immediately upon completion of construction to stabilize soils. 4.2 Water Resources 4.2.1 Surface Water The Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended in 1977, established the basic framework for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. Based on review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Biloxi, MS 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map dated 1992, site elevation ranges from approximately 20’ to 15’ amsl, sloping gently towards the north. Surface water within the proposed project site drains north-northeast towards via natural topography and underground stormwater drainage pipes. There is one stormwater inlet on the project site. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to surface water are anticipated because no construction would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, short-term impacts to the surface water may occur during the construction period due to soil erosion. The applicant would be required to obtain an approved SWPPP and a NPDES permit prior to start of construction. To reduce impacts to surface water, the applicant would implement appropriate BMPs, such as installing silt fences and revegetating bare soils. 4.2.2 Floodplains Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support of development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA uses Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) to identify the regulatory 100-year floodplain for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Based on information provided by Mr. Richard Stickler, CFM, Floodplain Administrator for the City of Biloxi, the 2.2-acre proposed project location is currently not located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). However, based on the new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps released by FEMA (which will become effective later this year), the property will be in a SFHA with a base flood elevation of 17’ amsl. A letter of documentation provided by Mr. Stickler is provided in Appendix B of this report. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to the floodplain are anticipated because no construction would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the project would be constructed within SFHA AE. The building(s) would be constructed with a floor elevation of 21’ amsl to comply with proposed federal floodplain regulations. The City of Biloxi would maintain flood insurance on the buildings. 4.2.3 Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or filled material into water of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) required Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impact of wetlands. The USACE was contacted by letter of June 25, 2008, regarding this project. By letter of July 8, 2008, Mr. John McFadyen of the USACE indicated that the project location is upland, no wetlands are present, and that no permit would be required for this project. Documentation is enclosed in Appendix B of this report. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) enables coastal states, including Mississippi, to designate state coastal zone boundaries and develop coastal management programs to improve protection of sensitive shoreline resources and guide sustainable use of coastal areas. According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the proposed project site is located within the Mississippi Coastal Zone (NOAA, 2007). The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is the lead coastal management agency. On July 15, 2008, Ms. Willa Henriksen, Bureau Chief of the MDMR Wetlands Permitting Program provided correspondence (attached in Appendix B) stating no objections to the project, provided there are no direct or indirect impacts to coastal wetlands and no coastal program agency objects to the proposal. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – No waters of the U.S., including wetlands, occur on the proposed project site. Therefore, under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, would occur. Responses from the USACE Mobile District and from the MDMR indicate no agency objections. 4.3 Hazardous Materials Neel-Schaffer, Inc. completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project property in June, 2008. The Phase I ESA is included under separate cover. Research of the history of the property indicated that former uses of the property include a sash, door and blind factory, a wrecker service facility and an auto junkyard. Part of the property (Parcel A, at 220 Delauney Street) was listed as a RCRA conditionally exempt hazardous waste generator. Due to the potential historic releases of petroleum products from junked vehicles, as well as the historic generation of hazardous wastes on the site, a recognized environmental condition (REC) was identified in the Phase I ESA report. The Phase I ESA report contained a recommendation that a limited Phase II ESA, consisting of the collection and analysis of soil and groundwater samples, be conducted on the property in order to assess for the potential presence of petroleum products, solvents, and metals from historic site activities. The Phase II ESA field activities were conducted on July 8, 2008. Seven soil borings were conducted on site, and four temporary monitoring wells were installed. Soil and groundwater samples were collected. Four surficial soil samples were analyzed for the eight Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals. Four soil samples from the borings and four groundwater samples from the temporary monitoring wells were analyzed for the following parameters: volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis by Method 8260, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) gasoline range organics (GRO) by Method 8015, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) by Method 8270 SIM, and TPH diesel range organics (DROs) by Method 8015. For all of the samples submitted for laboratory analysis, the target analytes were either below detection limits or were detected at concentrations below the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Tier 1 Target Remediation Goals (TRGs), with the following two exceptions. Lead was detected in the soil sample collected at a depth of 0 to 1 foot below ground surface (BGS) in Boring B-6 at a concentration of 420 mg/kg, slightly exceeding the MDEQ Tier 1 TRG of 400 mg/kg for lead. The sample was within the holding time for analysis, therefore, a duplicate portion of the same sample was analyzed for lead and the concentration was detected at 220 mg/kg, below the MDEQ Tier 1 TRG for lead. Therefore, this exceedence is not considered to represent a remediation liability. A TPH DRO concentration of 780 mg/kg was detected in the soil sample collected at a depth of 0 to 3 feet BGS in Boring B-4, exceeding the MDEQ Tier 1 TRG of 300 mg/kg for TPH-DRO. The sample was within the holding time for analysis, therefore, a duplicate portion of the same sample was analyzed for TPH-DRO and the concentration was detected at 1,600 mg/kg. According to Environmental Science Corporation laboratory chemists, their interpretation of the TPH-DRO gas chromatograph indicates the contaminant detected consists of motor oil, and possibly some minor amounts of weathered diesel. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to hazardous materials. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the localized area of surficial soil contamination at the location of boring B-4 would be delineated, removed by excavation, and disposed of at an MDEQ-approved facility. 4.4 Transportation The proposed project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Esters Boulevard and Delauney Street. Esters Boulevard is a two-lane urban boulevard, bisected by the railroad tracks, and Delauney Street is a two-lane urban roadway. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to transportation. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, minor short-term impacts to transportation, site access, or traffic levels would occur during the construction period. Construction will take place during normal business hours. To mitigate potential delays, construction vehicles and equipment would be stored on-site during project construction, appropriate signage would be posed on affected roadways and barriers would be in place prior to construction activities to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities. 4.5 Environmental Justice EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) mandates that Federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Socioeconomic and demographic data for the project area were analyzed to determine if a disproportionate number of minority or low-income persons have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposed project. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, there would be no disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority or low-income populations. The entire population of the City of Biloxi would benefit from an improved and consolidated Public Works Department. 4.6 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that states adopt ambient air quality standards. The standards have been established in order to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants. Under the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes primary and secondary air quality standards. Primary air quality standards protect the public health, including the health of “sensitive populations, such as people with asthma, children, and older adults.” Secondary air quality standards protect public welfare by promoting ecosystems health, and preventing decreased visibility and damage to crops and buildings. EPA has set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the following six criteria pollutants; ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) monitors all of these except lead and carbon monoxide. These were monitored in the past; however, because the concentrations were so much lower than the air quality standard, it was determined by EPA and MDEQ that lead and carbon monoxide no longer needed to be monitored. According to MDEQ, the entire state of Mississippi is classified as in attainment with all Federal ambient air quality standards, meaning that criteria air pollutants do not exceed the NAAQS (MDEQ, 2008). No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to air quality are anticipated since no construction would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, short-term impacts to air quality would occur during the construction period but would not be substantial enough to affect the attainment status of the six priority pollutants. To mitigate short-term impacts to air quality, construction contractors would be required to water down construction areas when necessary. Emissions from fuel-burning internal combustion engines (heavy equipment) could temporarily increase the levels of the criteria pollutants, including CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5 and PM10, as well as non-criteria pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). To reduce the emission of criteria pollutants, fuel-burning equipment running times would be kept to a minimum and engines would be properly maintained. 4.7 Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is most commonly measured in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale most similar to the range of sounds that the human ear can hear. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is an average noise level over a 24-hour period. The DNL descriptor is accepted by Federal agencies as a standard for estimating sound impacts and establishing guidelines for compatible land uses. EPA guidelines, and those of many other Federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB DNL are “normally unacceptable” for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, or hospitals. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to noise are anticipated since no construction would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, short-term impacts in noise levels would occur during the construction period. To reduce noise levels during that period, construction activities would take place during normal business hours. Equipment and machinery installed at the proposed site would meet all local, state and federal noise regulations. 4.8 Biological Resources The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists the following federally endangered (E) and threatened (T) species for Harrison County. Additional designations are as follows: (P) indicates Potential to occur; (C) indicates Candidate, CH indicates listed with critical habitat, and (DPS) indicates Distinct Vertebrate Population. (source:http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/Countylists.htm ) E – West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus (P) E – Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis T – Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucophalus (Proposed to be delisted) T – Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi (P) E – Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis T – Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T – Louisiana black bear Ursus a. luteolus TCH – Piping Plover Charadrius melodus E – Kemp’s ridley Lepidochelys kempii T – Green turtle Chelodania mydas (P) T – Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta E – Louisiana quillwort Isoetes louisianensis E – Mississippi gopher frog Rana capito sevosa (DPS) C – Black pine snake Pituophis mealanoleucus ssp. Lodingi TCH- Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi E- Alabama red-bellied turtle Psuedemys Alabamensis By letter of June 25, 2008, Ms. Kathy W. Lunceford, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, stated that there are no listed species or their habitats found on the project site. Correspondence is attached in Appendix B. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to biological resources because no construction would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – The proposed project site is disturbed, having been previously developed, and most of the surface was covered by pavement or gravel surfacing prior to commencement of this project. Impacts to biological resources would be minimal. No listed threatened or endangered species were determined to occur on the project site. 4.9 Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and implemented by 36 CFR Part 800, requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on Federal Projects that will have an effect on historic properties prior to implementation. Historic properties are defined as archeological sites, standing structures, or other historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). By letter of July 7, 2008, Mr. Jim Woodrick, Review and Compliance Officer for the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH), stated that no properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected, and therefore, the MDAH has no objections to the project. Correspondence is attached in Appendix B. By letter of July 7, 2008, Mr. Kenneth H. Carleton, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, was contacted for comments on the proposed project. No response was received from Mr. Carleton. Correspondence is attached in Appendix B. By letter of July 7, 2008, Mr. Terry Cole, THPO of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, was contacted for comments on the proposed project. No response was received from Mr. Cole. Correspondence is attached in Appendix B. No Action Alternative- Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to archaeological or cultural resources are anticipated because no site construction would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to archaeological or cultural resources are anticipated. If archeological artifacts or human remains were to be inadvertently discovered during the construction period, the applicant would stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize further harm to the finds. Work would not proceed until FEMA Historic Preservation staff complete consultation with the SHPO and the THPO. 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, cumulative impacts represent the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).” In accordance with NEPA and to the extent reasonable and practical, this EA considered the combined effect of the Proposed Action Alternative and other actions occurring or proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The City of Biloxi and the entire Mississippi Gulf coast continue the recovery efforts after the extensive property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. The recovery efforts in Biloxi include reconstruction of infrastructure, commercial and municipal buildings, and homes. These projects in combination with the proposed project may have a cumulative temporary impact on air quality and surface water by increasing criteria pollutants and increasing erosion potential during construction activities. No other cumulative effects are anticipated. 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FEMA is the lead Federal agency for conducting the NEPA compliance process for the construction of the new Biloxi Public Works Facility in Biloxi, Mississippi. It is the goal of the lead agency to expedite the preparation and review of NEPA documents and to be responsive to the needs of the community and the purpose and need of the proposed action while meeting the intent of NEPA and complying with all NEPA provisions. The City of Biloxi notified the public of the availability of the draft EA through publication of a public notice in a local newspaper. The public notice was published on August 23, 2008 and on August 30, 2008 in The Sun Herald (see Appendix C). FEMA conducted an expedited public comment period on the initial date of publication of the public notice and ending on September 8, 2008. No comments from the public were received. 7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS The following agencies and organizations were contacted by letter requesting project review during the preparation of this EA. * City of Biloxi Floodplain Administrator * U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Management Division * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson Field Office * U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District * Mississippi Department of Archives and History * Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Air Toxics Branch * Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians * Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma * Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, Bureau of Wetlands Permitting In accordance with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations, the applicant would be responsible for acquiring any necessary permits prior to commencing construction at the proposed project site. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS No impacts to geology, floodplains, water of the United States including wetlands, public health and safety, socioeconomic resources, environmental justice, or cultural resources are anticipated with the Proposed Action Alternative. The Proposed Action Alternative would involve the excavation and disposal of a localized area of surficial soil that has been impacted by motor oil. During the construction period, minor, short-term impacts to soils, transportation, surface water, air quality, and noise are anticipated. All short-term and minor impacts will require conditions to minimize and mitigate impacts to the proposed project site and surrounding areas. REFERENCES Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2008 http://www.epa.gov/Region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html. Accessed June 27, 2008. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 2007. http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/AirNewQualityStandardsandAttainment?OpenDocument. Accessed July 28, 2008. Neel-Schaffer, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Delauney-Esters Parcels, Biloxi, Mississippi June 2008. Neel-Schaffer, Inc. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Delauney-Esters Parcels, Biloxi, Mississippi July 2008. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. State Coastal Zone Boundaries. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gove/mystate/docs/StateCZBoundaries.pdf#search=%22coastal%20zone%20%20mississippi%20noaa%22. Accessed June 27, 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS) 2008 http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed June 27, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008 http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/countylists.htm Accessed June 27, 2008 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1992. Biloxi (MS) Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map. Neel-Schaffer, Inc. i NS Project No. 7087.001 Biloxi Public Works Facility Project Draft EA 13 NS Project No. 7870.001