Final Environmental Assessment Native Village of Eagle (New) FEMA-1843-DR-AK August 31, 2009 U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region X 130 228th Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF ACRONYMS v I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 4 2.1 Purpose, Scope and Use of Environmental Assessment 5 III. ALTERNATIVES 6 3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 7 3.2 Alternative 2 – Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Old 7 Village Site – Eliminated from Further Consideration 3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative – Construction of the New Village Site 7 3.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail 8 3.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 8 3.4.2 Alternative 2 – Eliminated from Further Consideration 8 3.4.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative – Construction of the New Village Site 8 IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 9 4.1 Climate, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils 14 4.1.1 Affected Environment 15 4.1.2 Effects to Climate, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils – No Action Alternative 16 4.1.3 Effects to Climate, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils – Preferred Action Alternative 16 4.1.4 Mitigation Measures 16 4.2 Water Resources 17 4.2.1 Affected Environment 18 4.2.1.1 The Clean Water Act (CWA) 18 4.2.1.2 EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) 18 4.2.1.3 EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 19 4.2.1.4 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) 19 4.2.2 Effects to Water Resources – No Action Alternative 19 4.2.3 Effects to Water Resources – Preferred Action Alternative 19 4.2.4 Mitigation Measures 20 4.3 Biological Resources 20 4.3.1 Affected Environment 21 4.3.1.1 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 21 4.3.1.2 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 21 4.3.1.3 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 21 4.3.1.4 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended) 21 4.3.2 Effects to Biological Resources – No Action Alternative 22 4.3.3 Effects to Biological Resources – Preferred Action Alternative 22 4.3.4 Mitigation Measures 22 4.4 Air Quality 22 4.4.1 Affected Environment 23 4.4.2 Effects to Air Quality – No Action Alternative 23 4.4.3 Effects to Air Quality – Preferred Action Alternative 23 4.4.4 Mitigation Measures 23 4.5 Noise 23 4.5.1 Affected Environment 23 4.5.2 Effects to Noise Levels – No Action Alternative23 4.5.3 Effects to Noise Levels – Preferred Action Alternative 23 4.5.4 Mitigation Measures 24 4.6 Cultural Resources 24 4.6.1 Affected Environment 24 4.6.2 Effects to Cultural Resources – No Action Alternative 24 4.6.3 Effects to Cultural Resources – Preferred Action Alternative 25 4.6.4 Mitigation Measures 25 4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions 25 4.7.1 Affected Environment 25 4.7.2 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – No Action Alternative 26 4.7.3 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – Preferred Action Alternative 26 4.7.4 Mitigation Measures 26 4.8 Safety and Security 26 4.8.1 Affected Environment 26 4.8.2 Effects to Safety and Security – No Action Alternative 26 4.8.3 Effects to Safety and Security – Preferred Action Alternative 26 4.8.4 Mitigation Measures 27 4.9 Hazardous Materials and Waste 27 4.9.1 Affected Environment 28 4.9.2 Effects from Hazardous Materials and Waste – No Action Alternative 28 4.9.3 Effects from Hazardous Materials and Waste – Preferred Action Alternative 28 4.9.4 Mitigation Measures 28 4.10 Public Involvement 29 4.11 Cumulative Effects 29 V. MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED 30 VI. CONCLUSION 31 VII. REFERENCES 32 VIII. APPENDICES A – Jurisdictional Determination by USACE 36 B – SHPO Concurrence Letter 50 C – Public Notice 52 IX. LIST OF PREPARERS 53 TABLES Table 1: Proposed Lots and Estimated Size for the Village of Eagle 4 Table 2: Summary of Effects and Impact Intensity 10 LIST OF ACRONYMS AAC Alaska Administrative Council ABFE Advisory Base Flood Elevation ACM Asbestos-Containing Material ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADOT Alaska Department of Transportation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium APE Area of Potential Effect ASCG ASCG Incorporated BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLS Below Land Surface BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Coastal Management Plan CRA Civil Rights Act CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DHS&EM Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act EDMS Electronic Document Management System FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FPPA The Farmland Protection Policy FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FWCA The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act HEAG Highest Existing Adjacent Grade LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MBTA The Migratory Bird Treaty Act MSL Mean Sea Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OEH Office of Environmental Health OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act PA Public Assistance Program PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment RECAP Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHA Rivers and Harbors Act RPKA Rodney P. Kinney Associates, Inc. SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation Office/Officer TCC Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act URARPAPA Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act US United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VSW Village Safe Water WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant WSRA The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act I. INTRODUCTION The Native Village of Eagle has applied through the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for funding to construct public facilities and infrastructure. The sites are needed to replace the former public facilities and infrastructure which were destroyed by the flooding and ice jams that occurred from April 28 through May 31, 2009. The event was declared a Presidential disaster on June 11, 2009, under FEMA-1843-DR-AK. FEMA is proposing to fund 75 percent of the cost for this project through its Public Assistance Program (PA) and the State of Alaska is proposing to fund the remaining 25 percent. The Village of Eagle (Village) is comprised of two sites discussed in this report: the old Village and the new Village. The old Village site was virtually destroyed by the moving ice jams and flooding that occurred during this disaster. The new Village site has been in the planning and development stages since 2000. The Village of Eagle is near the Canadian border approximately 380 road miles and 200 air miles from Fairbanks. The old Village site is located on the west side of the Yukon River, three miles east of the City of Eagle (Eagle). The old Village site lies at 64.7833 N.latitude and 141.1167 W. longitude. The new Village site is located 4 miles southeast of the old Village site in Section 14, T 2 S, R 33 E, Fairbanks Meridian, at 66.7455 N. latitude and 141.0475 W. longitude. A map of the old Village site, the new Village site, and the City of Eagle can be reviewed on USGS quad map Eagle D-1 or by using Google Earth to view aerial images. The Village of Eagle is a Han Kutchin Indian Village with an estimated 2008 population of 64. The Village is a traditional Athabascan community and subsistence is an important part of the local culture. A trading station for miners working the upper Yukon and its tributaries was established around 1874. In 1897, the City was founded and named after nesting eagles on nearby Eagle Bluff. By 1898 the population had grown to over 1,700. Eagle became the first incorporated city in the Interior in January 1901. However, by 1910 Fairbanks and Nome gold prospects had lured away many people and the City’s population declined to 178. Access to the state road system and Canada is only available during the summer via the Taylor and Top of the World Highways. A state-owned 3,600 feet long by 75 feet wide gravel airstrip is available, with commercial flights originating from Fairbanks and Tok. In addition, float planes are able to land on the Yukon River and although there is no public dock, there is a boat landing. The Village of Eagle has been in the process of relocating for several years due to flood hazards, erosion, and poor water quality at the existing village. The Eagle Village Council (Council) selected a site and obtained land for the new location. In 2001, the Council purchased approximately 58 acres of Lot 7 and Lot 8 of River Bluff Subdivision, Addition 2, located within Surveyed Section 14, Township 2 South, Range 33 East, Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska and recorded in the Fairbanks Recording District as Plat No. 2000-125. In 2006, the Council began development of a subdivision of the unsubdivided remainder of Lot 7 of Long Lake Subdivision Addition No. 1, Plat No. 2002-39 located within protracted Sections 11 and 14, Township 2 South, Range 33 East, Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska and recorded in the Fairbanks Recording District as Plat No. 2002-39. The new planning created communal properties for both public and residential usage and were subdivided into parcels known as Long Lake Subdivision, Addition No. 2, creating lots 1-9, Block 1: Lots 1-6, Block 2: Lots 1-6, Block 3: and Lots 1-10, Block 4. A legal survey and Final Environmental Assessment for the Eagle (new) Village Road Project was prepared on March 2005, by Rodney P. Kinney Associates, Inc. for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The EA determined no significant impact for the roads or utility easements proposed for the new Village. (See Rodney P. Kinney Associates, Inc., under References, page 34.) II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION As a result of the flooding and ice jams, FEMA was authorized under a Presidential disaster on June 11, 2009, (FEMA-1843-DR-AK), to implement the Public Assistance (PA) Program for the Village of Eagle. The purpose of the Public Assistance Grant Program is to provide applicant-requested federal assistance under FEMA’s PA program to State, Tribal and local governments, and certain types of Private Nonprofit organizations so that communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. FEMA anticipates that there will be a need for restoring permanent public facilities and infrastructure, destroyed by the flooding and ice in the old Village, with similar services for the residents as they relocate to the new Village. Functional, safe, reliable, and effective public services and infrastructure are critical elements in the rebuilding and recovery effort, and are essential for public health and safety of the relocating community. The preferred Action Alternative is the applicant’s request to meet their needs. The new Village location is designed to provide public services and infrastructure to the 64 residents. It would include public facilities (hospital clinic, Village Public Safety Office, fire and ambulance services, garage, storage, and other facilities deemed necessary), and public infrastructure (water, wastewater treatment, utilities, roads, etc. including but not limited to any necessary systems up-grades) to replace the destroyed facilities in the old Village. All subdivided lots are owned and maintained by the Village and planning development is still being determined by the Council. All lots within the new Village site are being evaluated under this Environmental Assessment (EA). Proposed lots and estimated lot sizes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 – Lots and Estimated Size for the Village of Eagle Block/Lot Number Acreage Long Lake Subdivision, Addition No. 1, Plat 2002-39 Lot 7-1 1.04 Lot 7-2 1.09 Lot 7-3 1.12 Lot 7-4 1.20 Lot 7-5 4.22 Long Lake Subdivision, Addition No. 2, Plat 2002-39 Block 1/Lot 1 1.07 Block 1/Lot 2 1.10 Block 1/Lot 3 1.10 Block 1/Lot 4 1.42 Block 1/Lot 5 1.07 Block 1/Lot 6 1.28 Block 1/Lot 7 1.22 Block 1/Lot 8 1.22 Block 1/Lot 9 1.36 Long Lake Subdivision, Addition No. 2, Plat 2002-39 Block 2/Lot 1 1.16 Block 2/Lot 2 1.31 Block 2/Lot 3 1.31 Block 2/Lot 4 1.16 Block 2/Lot 5 1.01 Block 2/Lot 6 1.01 Long Lake Subdivision, Addition No. 2, Plat 2002-39 Block 3/Lot 1 1.16 Block 3/Lot 2 1.31 Block 3/Lot 3 1.31 Block 3/Lot 4 1.16 Block 3/Lot 5 1.01 Block 3/Lot 6 1.01 Long Lake Subdivision, Addition No. 2, Plat 2002-39 Block 4/Lot 1 1.33 Block 4/Lot 2 1.30 Block 4/Lot 3 1.06 Block 4/Lot 4 1.20 Block 4/Lot 5 1.47 Block 4/Lot 6 1.01 Block 4/Lot 7 1.01 Block 4/Lot 8 1.06 Block 4/Lot 9 1.12 Block 4/Lot 10 1.49 River Bluff Subdivision, Addition No. 1, Plat 99-91 Lot 1 1.01 Lot 2 1.01 Lot 3 1.01 Lot 4 1.01 Lot 5 1.01 Lot 6 1.01 River Bluff Subdivision, Addition No. 2, Plat 99-91 Lot 8 2.50 2.1 Purpose, Scope and Use of Environmental Assessment The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 1500 and 44 C.F.R. Part 10 direct FEMA take into consideration the environmental consequences of proposed actions during the decision-making process. FEMA must comply with NEPA before making federal funds available for disaster response, recovery, and mitigation, including implementation of the PA Program. The Stafford Act and FEMA’s implementing regulations for NEPA provide for the exemption of certain actions from NEPA and the exclusion of other actions from full review under NEPA. For all other actions, FEMA ensures compliance with NEPA through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA is a concise public document that serves to provide evidence of the environmental impacts of a Preferred Action Alternative. The assessment includes alternatives to aid in decision making and concludes with one of two findings: a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). FEMA must prepare an EIS when significant environmental impacts are anticipated and cannot be mitigated. FEMA has determined through experience that the majority of the typical recurring actions proposed for funding, and for which an EA is required, can be grouped by type of action or location. These groups of actions can be evaluated in a Environmental Assessment (EA) for compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations without the need to develop and produce a stand-alone EA for every action. FEMA will use this EA to determine the level of environmental analysis and documentation required under NEPA for any proposed public facilities and infrastructure for the Village of Eagle, given the available site-specific information. If the alternatives, levels of analysis, and site-specific information of an action proposed for FEMA funding are fully and accurately described in this EA, FEMA will annotate to the appropriate project file in FEMA’s Environmental Management Information System documenting this determination. No further documentation would be required to comply with NEPA. Because FEMA would be required to implement the mitigation measures contained in the EA, the annotation to the file would summarize the mitigation measures to be undertaken for the action and alternatives. If the specific action is expected to (1) create impacts not described in the EA; (2) create impacts greater in magnitude, extent, or duration than those described in the EA; or (3) require mitigation measures to keep impacts below significant levels that are not described in the EA, then a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) and corresponding FONSI would be prepared to address the specific action. The SEA would be tiered from this EA, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28.1 Actions that are determined, during the preparation of the SEA, to require a more detailed or broader environmental review will be subject to the stand-alone EA process. Actions that are determined to have significant environmental impacts will be subject to the EIS Alternate Procedures established by FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on September 15, 2005 as a result of the emergency nature of these actions. III. ALTERNATIVES In accordance with federal laws and FEMA regulations, the EA process for a proposed federal action must include an evaluation of alternatives and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts. This EA includes three alternatives. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative, which would leave the Village with no public facilities or infrastructure. Alternative 2 is the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the old Village sites. Alternative 3 is the Preferred Action Alternative for construction on the new Village sites. 3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Inclusion of a No Action Alternative in the environmental analysis and documentation is required under NEPA, with no FEMA funding for any alternative action. The alternative evaluates the effects of not providing eligible assistance for a specific action and provides a benchmark against which the other alternatives may be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide rehabilitation or replacement of public facilities and infrastructure which were destroyed during the spring 2009 ice jams and flooding. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that the Village would be unable to repair or replace the damages to public facilities and infrastructure due to lack of FEMA funds and private assistance. The old Village was devastated and the community would be without drinking water, power, wastewater treatment, and other public services. There would be no construction of new facilities and infrastructure and public services would continue to be provided using the interim arrangements currently in use at the new Village site. These temporary facilities are currently providing only limited services and would continue to operate at a much reduced capacity. This alternative would not meet the community’s recovery needs and would forego the benefits of permanent facilities for the community and result in continued hardships, including the physical, psychological, and economic stresses associated with the damage and risks to public health and safety. 3.2 Alternative 2 – Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of the Old Village Site - Eliminated from Further Consideration This alternative would consist of rebuilding the public facilities and infrastructure back to the pre-disaster condition at the old Village site. FEMA discussed this alternative with the Village Council, the project applicant. Records show significant flooding in 1962 and 1964 and anecdotal information indicates annual flooding and erosion. The Village Council has determined that it is not viable or practical to reconstruct the existing community at the old location because of the potential for future flood and ice jam damage. Flooding and erosion from the spring 2009 disaster caused property damage and destruction to public facilities and infrastructure. The old Village site is without drinking water, power, and wastewater treatment facilities and the homes and buildings are uninhabitable. The old Village site is located within an identified flood-susceptible area of the Yukon River and is affected annually to some degree by flooding and erosion during the spring breakup of river ice. Rebuilding the community at the old Village site could cause property damage and pose imminent threats to lives, homes, and infrastructure. This alternative would not be consistent with FEMA’s PA program and legal requirements to site projects in a flood-free location, thus it was not analyzed further. 3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative – Construction of the New Village Site Under the Preferred Action Alternative, Alternative 3, FEMA would participate with the Village and State to fund construction of new public facilities and infrastructure for public services to the community. The new Village would include public facilities (clinic, Village Public Safety Office, fire and ambulance services, garage, storage, and other facilities deemed necessary), and public infrastructure (water, sewage treatment, utilities, roads, etc.) to replace the destroyed facilities from the old Village site. The new Village site has some existing infrastructure including a road system, electricity, and telecommunication systems and has had ground disturbance to at least the depth these required during installation. These sites include the Community Center, septic fields, potable water wells, residential lots, and vacant lots that are currently being developed for planned construction including residential, the temporary Health Clinic, and the Village Public Safety Office (VPSO). A legal survey and plat map were completed and all subdivided lots are owned and maintained by the Village (see figure 3.) Planning development and location for the new Health Clinic, Fire and Ambulance Services, Garage, Storage, and other public facilities are currently being evaluated by the Village Council. All lots within the new Village site are being evaluated under this EA. 3.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail 3.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is discussed in Section 3.1. 3.4.2 Alternative 2 – Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of the Old Village Site Alternative 2 is discussed in Section 3.2 and is eliminated from further consideration. 3.4.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative – Construction of the New Village Site The first step under this alternative would be for the Council to designate the lot site for each public facility to be constructed. The site would be cleared of all vegetation and grubbed. Contouring and grading would be done, if necessary. Facilities would be designed, constructed, and maintained according to applicable local, state, and federal building codes. If gravel access roads do not exist, gravel roads would be constructed for ingress/egress to/from the site. Utilities would be connected to the site including, but not limited to, any necessary design and engineering up-grades to provide consistent and reliable service. Electrical power for the City and the Village is generated at the power plant located next to the school, owned and run by Alaska Power and Telephone Company, a for-profit utility. The electric power system is available in certain areas of the new Village; further expansion would be required for future development of the new Village site. A Sanitation Facilities Feasibility Study/Master Plan was prepared by ASCG Incorporated on May 2001 for the new Village site. According to recommendations of the report and Village Council, each lot will have its own potable water well and septic field. If necessary, shallow drainage ditches would be constructed to carry storm water away from sites. IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The NEPA compliance process requires federal agencies to consider direct and indirect impacts to the environment. The following subsections discuss the regulatory settings and the existing conditions for resource areas within the Village. * Climate, Geology, Hydrogeology, and Soils * Water Resources o Water Quality o Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act o Floodplains o Wetlands * Biological Resources o Habitat and Vegetation o Threatened and Endangered Species * Air Quality * Noise * Cultural Resources * Socioeconomics * Safety and Security o Hazardous Materials The discussion is broad and regional in nature. It does not include a complete inventory of each resource but does provide information to characterize those resources. This section also describes the environment and existing conditions at the new Village site and identifies the potential effects of the two alternatives considered, including the impact intensity. Effects are categorized as follows: * None/Negligible: The effects of the alternative on environmental resources would either be undetectable or, if detected, would be slight and localized. Impacts would be well below regulatory standards, if applicable. * Minor: The effects of the alternative on environmental resources would be measurable, although the changes would be small and affect only the immediate vicinity where the action would take place. Impacts would be well within regulatory standards. Mitigation measures would reduce potential environmental effects and environmental impacts would be negligible. * Moderate: The alternative would have both localized and regional scale impacts. Mitigation measures would be necessary and the measures would reduce potential adverse effects. * Major: The alternative would have substantial consequences on a local and regional level. Impacts would exceed regulatory standards. Mitigation measures to offset adverse impacts would reduce potential adverse effect, but long-term changes to the resource would be expected. The following table summarizes the potential impacts of the No Action and Preferred Action Alternatives 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 along with the mitigation measures. Table 2. Summary of Effects and Impact Intensity Resource Climate, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. There would be no effect to climate, geology, hydrogeology, and soils, as no action would be taken. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: Minor/Moderate. There are no designated agricultural lands within the Village and soils are not prime, unique, or important. Minor to moderate impact would be anticipated as existing topography/soils and conditions at the Village would change due to excavation of unwanted fill and placement of fill and increased dust during construction. Project design/engineering would include measures to reduce thermal disturbance and thaw settlement. Soil conditions in the northeast corner of the lake may not be feasible for development because of the underground spring and flooding. Special engineering controls may be required. Water Resources Water Quality Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: Minor/Moderate. There would be no disturbance of the earth surface that would have the potential to impact water quality. However, water quality may be impacted from hazardous materials or wastes that may have been exposed by the disaster and remain in place. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: Negligible/Minor. Negligible impact would be anticipated from increased construction activities. The only surface water body is Long Lake located west of the Village. No anadromous streams, other than the Yukon River, were identified. The Preferred Action Alternative would not result in the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and does not require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The contractor should implement BMPs by installing silt fence/straw bales to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat) Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. No ground would be disturbed and therefore there would be no runoff that could affect potential Essential Fish Habitat in the Yukon River. See water Quality statement (page 8). Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. No adverse effect. The closest surface water body is Long Lake and no essential fish habitats were identified. No surface water bodies or streams are within 200 feet of the new Village site. Project design and best management practices required as part of the DEC authorization will ensure there will not be any release into the Yukon River or Long Lake. Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. If the Village chose to remain at its original location, it would remain in the estimated 100-year floodplain (see page 18) and be subjected to possible flooding events. The event-created construction debris would remain in non-cleared private areas of the Village. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. The new Village site does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and the area is not mapped for floodplains. However, using the best available data provided by the U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and .5-foot orthomosaic mapping provided by Aero-Metric, Inc. and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), FEMA was able to determine the new Village site is not located in a 100-year floodplain, per 44 CFR Part 9.7(c) – Floodplain determination. Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. There would not be any disturbance of the earth surface. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: Negligible/Minor. Based upon the field wetland determination and delineation and research of aerial photographs, soil and groundwater information, a Jurisdictional Determination for non-wetlands in the new Village was provided by the USACE with the condition that development within 30 feet of Long Lake needs to be avoided. If construction activities are proposed within 30 feet of Long Lake, a wetland determination and delineation survey for the Jurisdictional Determination by the USACE would be required (Appendix A). FEMA would comply with EO 11990 by applying the Eight-Step Process and documenting the results in a SEA. Any staging areas used for construction materials must meet conditions in Section 8.0 of this document as a term and condition of FEMA funding. Biological Resources Habitat and Vegetation Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. There would be no ground disturbance. No vegetation or wildlife at the site will be impacted if No Action Alternative is taken. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: Minor. The Village is located within an upland forest ecosystem that is mostly dominated by aspen (Populus tremuloides) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera), with some black spruce (Picea mariana) trees. The understory consists of an unknown willow (Salix spp.), some wild rose (Rosa spp.), Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), mosses (Sphagnum spp.), and small forbs. Habitat near the new Village site offers nesting, brood rearing, foraging, and staging habitat for numerous bird species, including the American peregrine falcon and the bald eagle. The American peregrine falcon was delisted from the USFWS Endangered Species List in 1999 and the bald eagle was delisted in 2006. Mammals in the new Village site area include caribou, moose, black and brown bear, lynx, wolves, foxes, hares, mink, beaver, and muskrat. Vegetation would be cleared and habitat would be lost. Fencing for the site would reduce the habitat available for wildlife use, but there is substantial habitat available in the surrounding area and the effect would be negligible. Short and long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are considered minor. Threatened and Endangered Species Act (Section 7) Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. There are no listed species or critical habitats in or near the affected area. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. No effect. There are no listed species or critical habitats in or near the project area. Air Quality Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. There would be no effect to air quality, as no action would be taken. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. Negligible impact would be anticipated from increased dust during construction. Project design would include watering practices during construction activities to reduce the likelihood of dust generation. Federal and state air quality attainment levels would not be exceeded. Noise Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. There would be no effect to noise quality, as no action would be taken. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: Negligible/Minor. With the rebuilding of public facilities and infrastructure, the new Village population would increase. With population increase, the background sound levels typical of small, rural communities influenced by wind, traffic, occasional construction activities, and other common community noises would increase. Given the anecdotal information on general sound levels, it is anticipated that typical daytime sound levels in the community would range between 50-60 dB(A). The Preferred Action Alternative would create a short-term increase in noise pollution due to heavy machinery operation during construction. Construction could be limited to daytime hours to reduce noise impacts. Federal and state noise quality attainment levels would not be exceeded. Cultural Resources (National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106) Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: None/Negligible. FEMA would not fund the project and there would be no ground disturbance or clearing related to construction. The No Action Alternative would have no significant effect on cultural resources. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. No known archaeological or historic sites exist in the vicinity of the new Village site for the Preferred Action Alternative. FEMA has determined that the area has a very low potential for the location of such sites, and that no archaeological survey needs to be conducted. Subject to any unanticipated discovery (see Section 8.0), FEMA has further determined that no historic properties will be affected by this undertaking. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with these determinations on August 7, 2009 (see Appendix B). Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: Major. This alternative would likely result in disproportionate health and safety risks to low-income and minority persons and to children, as these groups will be most likely to be affected by the lack of public infrastructure if not restored or repaired. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. The Preferred Action Alternative is not expected to pose disproportionately high and adverse public health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations and would not cause adverse economic impacts. Safety and Security Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: Moderate. There would not be any action to provide safety or security for remaining construction and demolition debris which, if not removed, would impact the community as an attractive nuisance and a safety issue. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. During construction the contractor would post appropriate signage and fencing to minimize potential adverse public safety concerns, including placing fencing around the site perimeter. Appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities in order to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities and traffic pattern changes. Hazardous Materials and Wastes Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: Moderate. Although the No Action Alternative would not actively use hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes, it may prolong the exposure of individuals to hazardous materials or wastes that may have been generated by the disaster. Residents who find themselves without alternative housing may continue to live within an area contaminated by hazardous materials or wastes, such as petrochemicals (from storage areas), airborne asbestos (from damaged asbestos-containing materials), or lead paint chips (from peeling painted surfaces) which can create a potential hazard to human health. Alternative 3 – Preferred Action Alternative: None/Negligible. According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation website and the Environmental Protection Agency website, no hazardous waste or contaminated sites are in or near the project area. Activities that occurred historically at sites proposed for construction of facilities and infrastructure may have generated hazardous materials or wastes. Appropriate measures to prevent, minimize and control spills of hazardous materials should be taken, and any hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated should be disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local requirements. 4.1 Climate, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils The EA project area is located in the Yukon-Tanana Upland. Rounded, even-topped ridges with gentle side slopes characterize this section of broad undulating divides and flat-topped spurs. The ridges have no preferred direction, are 3,000-5,000 feet in altitude but have some domes as high as 6,800 feet, and rise 1,500-3,000 feet above adjacent valleys. Streams in the eastern part drain to the Yukon drainage basin. Streams flow south to the Tanana River and north to the Yukon River. The few lakes in this section are mainly thaw lakes in valley floors and low passes. There are no glaciers; the entire section is underlain by discontinuous permafrost. Periglacial mass-wasting is active at high altitudes, and ice wedges lace the frozen muck of valley bottoms. The geology is a belt of highly deformed Paleozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks containing conspicuous limestone units which extend along the north side of the upland. The rest of the upland is chiefly Precambrian. A thick mantle of windborne silt lies on the lower slopes of hills and thick accumulations of muck overlie deep stream gravels in the valleys. 4.1.1 Affected Environment The Yukon-Tanana Uplands around the Village are characterized by rounded ridges, and include Crazy and White Mountains. The Ogilvie Mountains lie north of the Village across the Yukon River. The terrain at the project site is relatively flat. From the Yukon River’s edge, the terrain slopes steeply upwards over a length of fifty feet before it flattens and begins to gently climb to the west. Long Lake, a 13-acre lake, lies on the west side of the new Village site. According to the Sanitation Facilities Feasibility Study by ASCG, an underground spring is located in the northeast corner of Long Lake and this area is known to flood during the spring. According to the subsurface investigation conducted by RPKA in 2003, groundwater was detected in one exploratory pit at a depth of 6 feet. The typical soil strata at the village site consist of 6 to 18 inches of organic material at the surface, followed by 18 to 24 inches of silt or sandy silt. Gravel was encountered below the silt layer in most locations. Four of the test pits at the village site revealed a layer of permafrost. The new Village site is classified as being in an area of discontinuous permafrost. The Village experiences seasonal temperature extremes. The Environmental Atlas of America reports a mean minimum January temperature of -20 F, and a mean maximum temperature of -4 F. The mean low for July is 44 F, and the mean high is 75 F. The mean annual temperature is 22.5 F. According to the Western Regional Climate Center, temperatures have been recorded as high as 97 F and as low as -71 F in the City of Eagle. The design freezing index for the Village is approximately 7600, and the design thawing index is 3300. Average annual precipitation is 11.3 inches, and ice fog is common in the winter. The mean annual snowfall is approximately 55 inches. Pilots report that prevailing winds come from the east at the airport. 4.1.2 Effects to Climate, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils – No Action Alternative There would be no immediate change to the topography and soils. 4.1.3 Effects to Climate, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils – Preferred Action Alternative Existing topography/soil conditions at the project area would change due to excavation of unwanted material and the subsequent placement of fill. Frozen soils may be thawed and thaw settlement may occur due to the placement for building construction and infrastructure. The consequences to the public would be moderate uneven settlement of constructed improvements and uneven finish surfaces. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects (direct and indirect) of their activities before taking any action that could result in converting designated prime or unique farmland or farmland of statewide and local importance to nonagricultural purposes. There are no designated agricultural lands within the Village and soils are not prime, unique, or important. The action complies with FPPA and no further documentation is required. 4.1.4 Mitigation Measures There are several methods to reduce thermal disturbance and thaw settlement. One method would be to over-excavate the frozen material and replace it with thaw-stable fill material. A second method would be to provide insulation to keep the permafrost frozen. A third method is to plan on thawing and settlement. Removing the organic layer prior to construction would accelerate thawing and reduce settlement after construction. Erosion control methods would be implemented at each area of construction to minimize erosion from both precipitation and river activity. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented as listed in Section 8.0. Soil conditions near the northeast corner of the lake may not be feasible for development because of the underground spring and potential for flooding. Special engineering controls may be required. 4.2 Water Resources The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges to navigable waters of the United States. It sets forth procedures for effluent limitations, water quality standards and implementation plans, national performance standards, and point source (e.g., municipal wastewater discharges) and nonpoint source programs (e.g., stormwater.) The CWA also establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under Sections 401 and 402 and permit requirements for dredged or fill material under Section 404. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is charged with regulating the disposal of dredge and fill materials under Section 404 of the CWA. A Section 404 permit from the USACE must be obtained for any dredge or fill activities within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. During the permit review process, the USACE determines the type of permit appropriate for the proposed action. Two types of permits are issued by the USACE: (1) General Permits, issued on a state,regional and nationwide basis and covering a variety of activities, including minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects; and (2) Individual Permits, issued for a case-specific activity. Section 401 of the CWA specifies that states must certify that any activity subject to a permit issued by a federal agency, such as a CWA Section 404 permit, meets all state water quality standards. Water quality certification is also necessary when a project qualifies for a General Permit, even if the activity does not need to be reported to the USACE. EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to take action to minimize occupancy and modification of floodplains. Furthermore, EO 11988 requires that federal agencies proposing to site an action in a 100-year floodplain must consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplain. In accordance with 44 CFR Part 9, critical actions, such as developing hazardous waste facilities, hospitals, or utility plants, must be undertaken outside of a 500-year floodplain. If no practicable alternatives exist to siting an action in the floodplain, the action must be designed to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain. Furthermore, a notice must be publicly circulated explaining the action and the reasons for siting it in the floodplain. When evaluating actions in the floodplain, FEMA applies the decision process described in 44 CFR Part 9, referred to as the Eight-Step Process, to ensure that its actions are consistent with EO 11988. By its nature, the NEPA compliance process involves the same basic decision-making process as the Eight-Step Process. As with EO 11988, EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires federal agencies to follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures with public input before proposing new construction in wetlands. The implementation of EO 11990 is described in 44 CFR Part 9. As with EO 11988, the Eight-Step Process is used to evaluate the potential effects of an action on wetlands. As discussed in the Clean Water Act subsection above, formal legal protection of jurisdictional wetlands is promulgated through Section 404 of the CWA. A permit from the USACE may be required if an action has the potential to affect wetlands. 4.2.1 Affected Environment 4.2.1.1 The Clean Water Act (CWA) Construction activities would not require dredging or filling or create pollutant discharges to navigable waters of the United States. The CWA sets forth procedures for effluent limitations, water quality standards and implementation plans, national performance standards, and point source (e.g., municipal wastewater discharges) and nonpoint source (e.g., stormwater) programs. The CWA also establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) underSections 401 and 402 and requires permits for dredged or fill material under Section 404. 4.2.1.2 EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) Neither FEMA nor the USACE has mapping for the new Village site showing either the 100 or 500-year floodplain. Flood levels for the old Village and new Village sites were developed by ANTHC surveyors during field reconnaissance in June 2000. A correlation was developed between a gauge reading in the City of Eagle and the elevation used by ANTHC’s surveyors for aerial photography. Using ANTHC’s basis of elevation, the river surface at the new Village was at elevation 860 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on June 10, 2000, the day aerial photographs were taken. The gauge reading in the City of Eagle, approximately 6 miles down river of the new Village, read 20.44 feet on June 10, 2000. The Yukon River has a fairly uniform river surface on the stretch of river between the City of Eagle and the new Village site. Based upon the study by ANTHC, it was assumed that the river surface at the new Village is within a foot of the elevation of the river surface at the gauge in the City of Eagle. A correlation was developed for any gauge reading to establish a water surface elevation in MSL. Therefore, a gauge reading of 20.44 feet at the City of Eagle would equal a surface elevation of approximately 860 feet MSL at the new Village. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that the gauge at the City of Eagle was originally established in 1911 at the bluff downstream of the City and operated until 1913. From 1950 to 1955, the gauge was operated at a site 1.1 miles upstream of the City of Eagle. From 1955 to present, it has been operated and referenced to water levels at the current site in front of the historical customs office. The highest recorded gauge reading at the City of Eagle occurred during a 1962 ice jam event. The gauge indicated the river peaked at 35.94 feet (875.5 MSL). An open water flood occurred in 1964, producing a gauge reading of 33.85 feet (875.41 MSL). The 1962 and 1964 floods were contained within the riverbanks at Eagle River. USGS data also suggests a significant flood during break-up in 1992, with a gauge reading of 35.90, just under the 1962 flood level. The USACE estimates that the 100-year flood level at the old Village is two to three feet higher than the highest recorded flood, which would equal a gauge reading of approximately 39 feet, or an elevation of 878.36 MLS. The new Village is at approximately 900 feet MSL, well above the estimated 100-year flood level of 878.6 feet at the old Village site and likely well above a 500-year flood level. 4.2.1.3 EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) Wetlands were not noted during the site reconnaissance and soil characteristics of the entire Village appeared dry. Currently, no wetland inventory maps are available for the new Village site. Hank Baij, USACE Biologist, visited the site on July 23, 2009, and conducted a field wetland determination for the new Village site. The new Village is dominated by aspen (Populus tremuloides), which is at least a facultative upland species (dry two-thirds of the time) and may be an upland (dry all the time) indicator. Based upon the field wetland determination and delineation and research of aerial photographs, soil and groundwater information, a Jurisdictional Determination for non-wetlands in the new Village was provided by the USACE with the condition that development within 30 feet of Long Lake needs to be avoided (see Appendix B). 4.2.1.4 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) preserves selected rivers in a free-flowing condition and protects their local environments. These rivers possess outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, or cultural values. The Yukon River is not designated as a Wild and Scenic River. 4.2.2 Effects to Water Resources – No Action Alternative This alternative does not include any FEMA action. Therefore, FEMA would not be required to comply with the CWA, EO 11988, EO 11990, or WSRA. There would no disturbance of the earth surface that would have the potential to impact water quality. However, water quality may be impacted from hazardous materials or wastes that may have been exposed by the disaster. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on the 100-year floodplain. If the Village chose to remain at the pre-disaster location, it would remain in the 100-year floodplain and be subjected to possible future flooding events. 4.2.3 Effects to Water Resources – Preferred Action Alternative Site preparation and construction of public facilities and infrastructure within the new Village location has the potential to affect hydrology and water quality with minimal sediment pollution. The new Village site is not within a floodplain thus the project would be in compliance with EO 11988 and no further documentation is required. The Yukon River is not designated Wild and Scenic thus no further review is required for this resource. FEMA and the USACE evaluated whether the new Village site is located within wetlands. Based upon the findings and the Jurisdictional Determination, approximately 95% of the new Village is not within a wetland and would be in compliance with EO 11990 and no further documentation would be required. Approximately 5% of the new Village site around Long Lake may be wetlands and would need further evaluation. Based upon this finding, development within 30 feet of Long Lake will be avoided. If construction is proposed within 30 feet of Long Lake, FEMA would comply with EO 11990 by applying the Eight-Step Process and documenting the results in a SEA. See Appendix A for Jurisdictional Determination and 8.0 for Mitigation Measures. The Preferred Action Alternative may result in the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States via surface water runoff. Sediment pollution from roadway runoff could affect the water quality of the Yukon River and Long Lake. If development and construction near the lake by the underground spring is necessary, it would require special engineering controls. According to the Sanitation Facilities Feasibility Study by ASCG, this area is known to flood during the spring due to the underground spring and soil conditions may not be feasible for development. 4.2.4 Mitigation Measures Site preparation and construction of public facilities and infrastructure has the potential to affect hydrology and water quality. Erosion control methods would be implemented at areas of construction to minimize erosion from both precipitation and river activity. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented as listed in Section 8.0. If construction activities are proposed within 30 feet of Long Lake, a wetland determination and delineation survey for a Jurisdictional Determination by the USACE would be required along with notification to State/FEMA for further environmental review. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented as listed in Section 8.0. 4.3 Biological Resources The Endangered Species Act (ESA) establishes a federal program to conserve, protect, and restore threatened and endangered plants and animals and their habitats. Section 7 of the ESA mandates that all federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction of critical habitat for these species. To accomplish this, federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) when taking action that has the potential to affect species listed as endangered or threatened or proposed for threatened or endangered listing. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandoning eggs or young) may be considered a take and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. If an action is determined to cause a potential take of migratory birds, as described above, then a consultation process with the USFWS needs to be initiated to determine measures to minimize or avoid these impacts. This consultation should start as an informal process. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) was enacted to protect fish and wildlife when federal actions result in the control or modification of a natural stream or body of water. The statute requires federal agencies to take into consideration the effect those water-related projects would have on fish and wildlife resources, take actions to prevent loss or damage to theseresources, and provide for the development and improvement of these resources. For an action resulting in the control or modification of a body of water, the federal agency must consult with the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries (as appropriate) to develop measures to mitigate action-related losses of fish and wildlife resources. These measures need to be included in some kind of public documentation for the action, and where possible, the federal lead agency must incorporate the measures in plans for the action. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended), also known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act, requires all federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on activities or proposed activities authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The EFH provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act is designed to protect fisheries habitat from being lost due to disturbance and degradation. EO 13112 (Invasive Species) was created to prevent the introduction of invasive species and to provide for their control. Under this order, the federal government may “not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.” 4.3.1 Affected Environment The Village is located within an upland forest ecosystem that is mostly dominated by aspen (Populus tremuloides) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera), with some black spruce (Picea mariana) trees. The understory consists of an unknown willow (Salix spp.), some wild rose (Rosa spp.), Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), mosses (Sphagnum spp.) and small forbs. Habitat near the new Village site offers nesting, brood rearing, foraging, and staging habitat for numerous bird species, including the American peregrine falcon and the bald eagle. The American peregrine falcon was delisted from the USFWS Endangered Species List in 1999 and the bald eagle was delisted in 2006. Mammals in the new Village site area include caribou, moose, black and brown bear, lynx, wolves, foxes, hares, mink, beaver, and muskrat. 4.3.1.1 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) According to USFWS there are no threatened and endangered species near the new Village site. 4.3.1.2 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) No migratory birds were identified at the new Village site. 4.3.1.3 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) No in-water work is proposed at the new Village site, thus no modification of a natural stream or waterbody will occur that would require further review. 4.3.1.4 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended) The closest surface water body is Long Lake and no essential fish habitats were identified. No other surface water bodies or streams are within 200 feet of the new Village site. Project design and best management practices required as part of the DEC authorization will ensure there will not be any release into the Yukon River or Long Lake. 4.3.2 Effects to Biological Resources – No Action Alternative This alternative does not include any FEMA action, Therefore, FEMA would not be required to consult with USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, or ADF&G to comply with ESA, MBTA, FWCA or the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Fish and wildlife currently inhabiting or foraging in the area would continue to do so. 4.3.3 Effects to Biological Resources – Preferred Action Alternative The new Village site has been evaluated and the project does not have the potential to affect threatened and endangered species or their habitats, migratory birds, natural waterways, or EFH. The Preferred Action Alternative would disturb areas of the Village. Vegetation would be cleared and habitat would be lost and fencing for construction activities would reduce the habitat available for wildlife use. However, there is substantial habitat available in the surrounding area and the effect would be negligible. Short and long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are considered minor. No river habitat would be affected by construction activities within the Village. 4.3.4 Mitigation Measures Appropriate BMPs and fencing within and for the site would reduce the habitat available for wildlife use, but there is substantial habitat available in the surrounding area and the effect would be negligible. Short and long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are considered minor. 4.4 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) establish primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants that are considered harmful to the public and environment. Primary NAAQS are established at levels necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Similarly, secondary NAAQS specify the levels of air quality determined appropriate to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with air contaminants. The pollutants for which USEPA has established ambient concentration standards are called criteria pollutants and include ozone (O3), respirable particulates that have aerodynamic diameters of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particles with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 micrometers, (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The CAA also requires USEPA to assign a designation to each area of the United States regarding compliance with the NAAQS. The USEPA categorizes the level of compliance or noncompliance as follows: attainment (area currently meets the NAAQS), maintenance (area currently meets the NAAQS but has previously been out of compliance), and nonattainment (area currently does not meet the NAAQS). 4.4.1 Affected Environment According to the USEPA, the new Village site is in an attainment area for air quality. Attainment areas meet the EPA’s Air Quality Standards. 4.4.2 Effects to Air Quality – No Action Alternative Air quality would not be impacted with the No Action Alternative. 4.4.3 Effects to Air Quality – Preferred Action Alternative Airborne dust caused by construction activities would have minor, temporary effects on air quality during construction. Vehicle travel on the completed gravel roads and access driveways would also propel dust particles into the air, thus impacting air quality in minor amounts. Vehicle exhaust and heavy equipment exhaust would increase, but would have minor, temporary effects on air quality. Consequences to the public would be minor with implementation of appropriate BMPs and mitigation. 4.4.4 Mitigation Measures Watering during construction would help control airborne dust resulting from construction activities. A dust palliative would be applied during construction to help control air pollution caused by dust. This treatment would need to be reapplied periodically to maintain its effectiveness. Reapplication would be the responsibility of the entity maintaining the road, and would be subject to its priority and funding constraints. 4.5 Noise Commonly defined as unwanted and/or unwelcome sound, noise is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 1972. Although this Act tasks the USEPA to prepare guidelines for acceptable ambient noise levels, it only charges those federal agencies that operate noise-producing facilities or equipment to implement noise standards. 4.5.1 Affected Environment The new Village site is mostly undeveloped land with a road infrastructure, a Community Center, and some residential houses. Undeveloped land still lies throughout the new Village site. Noise baseline data is unavailable for the project area. 4.5.2 Effects to Noise Levels – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not cause an increase in noise pollution. 4.5.3 Effects to Noise Levels – Preferred Action Alternative With the rebuilding of public facilities and infrastructure, more villagers would move from the old Village to the new Village. The background sound levels typical of small, rural communities that are influenced by wind, traffic, occasional construction activities, and other common community noises levels would increase as the Village population relocates to the new site. Given the anecdotal information on general sound levels, it is anticipated that typical daytime sound levels in the community would range between 50-60 dB(A). The Preferred Action Alternative would create a short-term increase in ambient noise levels due to heavy machinery operation during construction. The consequences to the public would be minor with short term increases to ambient noise levels from construction that would be limited to daylight hours. 4.5.4 Mitigation Measures Construction should be limited to daytime hours to reduce noise impacts. 4.6 Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declares federal policy to protect historic sites and values, in cooperation with other nations, states, and local governments. Subsequent amendments designated the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as the individual responsible for administering state-level programs. Section 106 of the NHPA and implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) outline the procedures to be followed in the documentation, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. The Section 106 process applies to any federal undertaking that has the potential to affect cultural resources. The Section 106 process includes identifying significant historic properties and districts that may be affected by an action and mitigating adverse effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4). 4.6.1 Affected Environment An archaeological survey was done by BIA archaeologists in 1988 at some proposed sites in the new Village. A letter from the SHPO notes that there are no reported sites in the area. During construction of the road system at the new Village, BIA maintained responsibility for compliance with Section 106. After completing an additional archaeological survey of the project area in 2003, the BIA Regional Roads Archaeologist submitted a finding of No Historic Properties Affected to the SHPO. The SHPO concurred with these findings. No known archaeological or historic sites exist in the vicinity of the new Village. FEMA has determined that the area has a very low potential for the location of such sites, and that no archaeological survey needs to be conducted. Subject to any unanticipated discovery (see Section 8.0), FEMA has further determined that no historic properties will be affected by this undertaking. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with these determinations on August 7, 2009 (see Appendix B). 4.6.2 Effects to Cultural Resources – No Action Alternative Cultural Resources would not be impacted with the No Action Alternative. 4.6.3 Effects to Cultural Resources – Preferred Action Alternative Because there are no known archaeological or historic sites in the vicinity of the new Village and the area has been determined low probability for archeological resources, no effects to cultural resources are anticipated. 4.6.4 Mitigation Measures If any unanticipated archeological resources are identified during construction, the contractor shall stop work pending evaluation of the discovery and coordination with the SHPO. 4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations) requires federal lead agencies to ensure rights established under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when analyzing environmental effects. FEMA and most federal lead agencies determine impacts to low-income and minority communities as part of the NEPA compliance process. Agencies are required to identify and correct programs, policies, and activities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. EO 12898 also tasks federal agencies with ensuring that public notifications regarding environmental issues are concise, understandable, and readily accessible. EO 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks) requires federal agencies to identify and assess health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. As with EO 12898, FEMA and most federal lead agencies determine impacts to children as part of the NEPA compliance process. Agencies must ensure that their policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URARPAPA) and Title IV of the Uniform Relocation Act provide consistent and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by federal or federally assisted programs. These regulations also establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for federal and federally assisted programs. Agencies are required to reimburse for and provide relocation planning, assistance coordination, and advisory services to persons displaced by such programs. 4.7.1 Affected Environment Approximately 64 people live in or near the Village. The villagers depend heavily on a traditional subsistence lifestyle, traveling out from the village for hunting, fishing, and gathering. The Yukon River is an important transportation corridor, providing access to many traditional use areas. Throughout the summer months, the village has access to the state road system and Canada using the Taylor and Klondike Highways. During the winter, these highways are not maintained and air travel becomes the primary mode of transportation. An airport is available at the City of Eagle with scheduled air service to Fairbanks. Most of the employment in the Village is seasonal. Summer tourism brings many people to nearby Eagle City, both by bus and tour boat. A tour boat operates on the Yukon River between Eagle and Dawson City, Canada. 4.7.2 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – No Action Alternative Socioeconomic conditions would have a major impact on the Village under this alternative. This alternative would likely result in disproportionate health and safety risks to the low-income and minority persons and to children, as these groups will be most likely to be affected by the lack of public infrastructure if not restored or repaired. 4.7.3 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – Preferred Action Alternative The Preferred Action Alternative is not expected to pose disproportionately high or adverse public health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations and would not cause adverse economic impacts. The Preferred Action Alternative would benefit the Village’s infrastructure and public services. Short-term benefits would include additional jobs for the Village residents during construction of the project. 4.7.4 Mitigation Measures None 4.8 Safety and Security The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) seeks to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths by issuing and enforcing standards for workplace safety and health. The health, safety and security of construction workers, area residents and the general public as related to the project alternatives are considered in this section. 4.8.1 Affected Environment The new Village site is mostly undeveloped land with a road infrastructure, utility easements, a Community Center, and some residential houses. Undeveloped land still lies throughout the new Village site. The level of safety and security risk at the new Village site is minimal due to lack of population. 4.8.2 Effects to Safety and Security – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no impact on health, safety and security in the new Village. 4.8.3 Effects to Safety and Security – Preferred Action Alternative The Preferred Action Alternative could temporarily impact the safety of workers and others in the vicinity of the project site during construction as construction sites are inherently dangerous. The safety of site workers would be dependent on the policies, knowledge, experience and diligence of the workers. The Village and its contractors should ensure all project activities are conducted in a safe manner and in compliance with all state and federal occupational safety regulations, including OSHA, to protect workers and the general public. 4.8.4 Mitigation Measures The contractor would post appropriate signage and fencing to minimize potential adverse public safety concerns, including placing fencing around the site perimeter. Appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities in order to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities and traffic pattern changes. Mitigation measures have been established in Section 8.0 to reduce any potential adverse effects from implementation of the Preferred Action Alternative. These measures and all appropriate BMPs are required as conditions of FEMA funding for the project. 4.9 Hazardous Materials and Waste Hazardous materials and wastes are regulated in the U.S. under a variety of federal and state laws. Federal laws and subsequent regulations governing the assessment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Solid Waste Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); and the Clean Air Act (CAA). RCRA is the federal law that regulates hazardous waste. RCRA regulates hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” that is, from the time the waste is generated through its management, storage, transport, treatment, and final disposal. The USEPA is responsible for implementing this law and may delegate this responsibility to the states to implement. Alaska Hazardous Waste Program is operated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Office in Seattle, Washington. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enable the USEPA to address the environmental problems that can result from underground tanks storing petroleum and hazardous substances. RCRA focuses only on active and proposed facilities and does not address abandoned or historical sites. TSCA gives the USEPA the ability to track the approximately 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the U.S. The USEPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of those that may pose an environmental or human-health hazard. The USEPA may ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. The USEPA may also control these chemicals as necessary to protect human health and the environment. TSCA supplements other federal statutes, including CAA and the Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act. TSCA includes regulations regarding asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). CERCLA and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) govern the process of identifying and prioritizing the cleanup of abandoned or other sites not regulated under RCRA contaminated by the release of hazardous materials. The USEPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and ensure their cooperation in the cleanup. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities in states are coordinated through the state environmental protection or waste management agencies. Section 112 of the CAA requires the USEPA to develop emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. In response to this section the USEPA published a list of hazardous air pollutants and promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations. Because lead and asbestos present a substantial risk to human health as a result of air emissions from one or more source categories, they are considered hazardous air pollutants and, thus, hazardous materials. The Asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR 61, Subpart M) addresses milling, manufacturing, and fabricating operations; demolition and renovation activities; waste disposal issues; active and inactive waste disposal sites; and asbestos conversion processes. 4.9.1 Affected Environment According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) website, no known hazardous waste or contaminated sites are in or near the new Village. A search of the EPA cleanup sites yielded similar results. 4.9.2 Effects from Hazardous Waste & Materials – No Action Alternative Although the No Action Alternative would not actively use hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes, it may prolong the exposure of individuals to hazardous materials or wastes that may have been exposed by the disaster. Residents who find themselves without alternative housing may continue to live within an area contaminated by hazardous materials or wastes, such as petrochemicals spills (from storage areas), airborne asbestos (from damaged asbestos-containing materials), or lead paint chips (from peeling painted surfaces on damaged buildings) which can create a potential hazard to human health. 4.9.3 Effects from Hazardous Waste & Materials – Preferred Action Alternative The Preferred Action Alternative is not expected to pose any significant public health or environmental effects. Activities that occurred historically at sites proposed for construction of facilities and infrastructure may have generated incidental hazardous materials or wastes. Although undeveloped, the potential exists for plumes of hazardous wastes to have migrated onto these sites or illegal dumping of hazardous waste to have occurred at these sites. Clearing, grubbing, grading, connecting utilities, constructing infrastructure could contribute to environmental releases of any latent hazardous waste or expose displaced residents to hazardous wastes. 4.9.4 Mitigation Measures If hazardous constituents are unexpectedly encountered during project activities, appropriate measures for the proper assessment, remediation and management of the contamination should be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, cement, caustics, acids, solvents, paint, electronic components, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, treated timber) and may result in the generation of small volumes of hazardous wastes. Appropriate measures (including BMPs) to prevent, minimize and control spills of hazardous materials should be taken, and any hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated should be disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local requirements. 4.10 Public Involvement FEMA’s Draft EA was released and a public notice was posted throughout the City and Village on August 26, 2009, for a 24-hour public review and comment period, ending August 27, 2009. The notice identified the Preferred Action Alternative, location of the action, participants, location of the draft EA, and listed Stanley KS Chun, FEMA Environmental Lead/Advisor, as the point of contact to contribute comments that would go to Mark Eberlein, FEMA Regional Environmental Officer. FEMA consulted with several state and federal agencies throughout this EA process to gather valuable input and to meet regulatory requirements (see reference list for specific contacts). This coordination was integrated into the public involvement process and the draft EA was provided to contacts at the DEC, DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cheryl Bommarito, FEMA Environmental Specialist, visited the community of Eagle on July 31, 2009, and met with representatives of both the City and Village, along with many community members. Additionally, FEMA staff met with village people to verbally discuss the contents of the draft EA and garner any input on potential for significance. The clear consensus throughout the community was that there are no significant concerns regarding the construction of public facilities and infrastructure in the new Village site. The community would like to see the project proceed as soon as possible, as there is a substantial need for public services and infrastructure in order to proceed with the recovery effort. No substantive public comments were received; therefore, no further public involvement will be conducted for this EA. In the public notice distributed with the draft EA, all recipients were notified that after the public comment period ended, provided no substantive comments were received, the final EA and the FONSI would be available for viewing at: http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments/archives_index.shtm. 4.11 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental effect of a Preferred Action Alternative when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other action. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. The old Village site was devastated and under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the community would remain without drinking water, power, sanitary, and other public services. There would be no construction of new facilities. Infrastructure and public services would continue to be provided using the interim arrangements currently in use at the new Village site. These temporary facilities are currently providing only limited services and would continue to operate at a much reduced capacity. This alternative would not meet the community’s needs and would forego the benefits of permanent facilities for the community and result in continued hardships, including physical, psychological and economic stresses associated with the damage and risks to public health and safety. The Preferred Action Alternative (Alternative 3) provides for the construction of new public facilities and infrastructure at the new Village site. Development is currently underway in the new Village site with assistance from other sponsoring agencies. Access to new public facilities and infrastructure on the part of the community could lead to a revitalized Village core and identity, the cumulative effect of which would be a positive, more stimulated local effort toward recovery of the economy and of community vitality. Future development may occur in the area directly adjacent to and above Long Lake. The Village will need to consider possible multi-family septic systems to avoid impacts to the water supply. Should FEMA be funding this construction, FEMA would mitigate these impacts by applying BMPs (as described in Section 8.0) to reduce transport of sediment, debris, oils, and hazardous substances. For the water supply, potable wells would need to be grouted and wellheads would need to be watertight to prevent contamination of the water supply. Building pads for facilities in this area would need to be constructed so they do not flood. Further evaluation of impacts would be documented in a Supplemental EA. V. MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED The following mitigation measures are required as conditions of FEMA funding: 1. The Village is required to obtain and comply with all local, state, and federal requirements, including, but not limited to any required certifications and permits for the Preferred Action Alternative. 2. If construction activities are proposed within 30 feet of Long Lake, a determination and delineation survey for Jurisdictional Determination by the USACE would be required. The applicant will notify the State/FEMA of the need to work within this location and allow FEMA the opportunity to complete additional environmental evaluation. 3. The applicant is responsible for selecting, implementing, monitoring and maintaining appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sediment, reduce spills and pollution, and provide habitat protection. Erosion controls must be in place before any significant alteration of the area takes place. If fill is stored on site, the contractor is required to cover and contain it appropriately. Access roads and work areas must use existing access ways whenever possible and minimize soil disturbance and compaction within 200 feet of a stream, water body, or wetland. 4. If hazardous constituents are unexpectedly encountered during project activities, appropriate measures for the proper assessment, remediation, containment and management of the contamination should be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, cement, caustics, acids, solvents, paint, electronic components, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, treated timber) and may result in the generation of small volumes of hazardous wastes. Appropriate measures to prevent, minimize and control spills of hazardous materials should be taken, and any hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated should be disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local requirements. 5. The contractor is to stay away from lake and wetland fringe areas and not dispose of overburden or other earthen material off-site and into any other waterway or wetland. 7. Large wood, native vegetation, and weed-free topsoil disturbed during the site preparation must be conserved on site whenever possible for site restoration. 8. In the event historically or archaeologically significant materials or sites (or evidence thereof) are discovered during the implementation of the project or should any cultural material (e.g., prehistoric stone tools or flaking, human remains, historic material caches) be encountered during construction, the project shall be halted and all reasonable measures taken to avoid or minimize harm to property until such time as the applicant and FEMA, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), determine appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that the project is in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 9. No construction material or debris shall be staged or disposed of in a wetland, even temporarily. Excess and unsuitable excavated material shall not be sidecast into or placed upslope of wetlands environments. 10. Watering during construction would help to control airborne dust resulting from the construction activities. A dust palliative would be applied during construction, as needed, to help control air pollution caused by dust. This treatment would need to be reapplied periodically to maintain its effectiveness. Reapplication would be the responsibility of the entity maintaining the road, and would be subject to its priority and funding constraints. 11. Construction shall be limited to daytime hours to reduce noise impacts. VI. CONCLUSION Based upon onsite review, previous studies and resource/regulatory agency consultations undertaken in the preparation of this EA, and given the precautionary and mitigation measures, no significant environmental impacts were identified associated with the construction of public facilities and infrastructure at the new Village of Eagle. VII. REFERENCES Aero-Metric, Inc. A-CAD orthomosaic mapping for the City and Village. June 15, 2008, and May 14, 2009. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Division of Community and Regional Affairs. Online community database for Eagle Village and City of Eagle, www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm. July 8, 2009. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Division of Community and Regional Affairs. Online community database for Tok. www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm?Comm_Boro_Name=Tok. July 11, 2009. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Health, Solid Waste Management Program. Application for Authorization for One-time Disposal of Inert Waste by City of Eagle. June 29, 2009. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Health, Solid Waste Management Program. Construction and Demolition Debris in Rural Alaska. April 2009. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water. Application for purchase or lease of state land by City of Eagle. June 29, 2009. ASCG, Inc. Eagle Village Sanitation Facilities Feasibility Study/Master Plan. May 2001. Blankenburg, Bob. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks, personal communication. June 30, 2009. Carr, Matt. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage, personal communication. June 25, 2009. Eagle. Draft Scope of Work for Debris Removal and Disposal, and Demolition Work for the City and Village of Eagle, Alaska. June 30, 2009. Eagle, City of. Declaration of a Debris Hazard on Private Property in the Community of Eagle. June 29, 2009. Environmental Atlas of America FEMA Region X. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and ENVAS mapping, Stephan Gaston. July 7, 2009. Jackson, Melanie. Rockwell Engineering and Construction Services, Fairbanks, personal communication. July 7 and July 10, 2009. Jacobson, Ted. Rural Community Action Program, Inc., personal communication. July 13, 2009. Journal of Rural and Community Development. Commentary: Solid Waste as it Impacts Community Sustainability in Alaska. Matsuura, Lung and Nakazawa. Volume 3, 2008, pages 108-122. Krauthoefer, Tracie. Review and Compliance Archaeologist, Alaska State Historic Preservation Office, personal communication with Charles Diters, FEMA historic preservation specialist. June 26 and July 2, 2009. Milles, Chris. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Fairbanks, personal communication. July 10, 2009. Morse, Allen. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication. June and July 2009. Pipkin, Mark E. Eagle Village, Alaska BIA Road Project 2002 Archaeological Survey. April 2003. Proulx, Jeanne. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Fairbanks, personal communication. July 10, 2009. Rockwell Engineering and Construction. U.S. Survey plat map for proposed site. June 26, 2009. Rodney P. Kinney Associates, Inc. Eagle Village Road Project, Final Environmental Assessment. March 2005. Sarcone, Joe. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage, personal communication. June 29 and July 10, 2009. Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Wetland Delineation, Vegetation Classification, and Wildlife Assessment, Taylor Highway Project, Chicken, Alaska to Canadian Border. May 2003. Spiers, Ken. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks, personal communication. July 8, 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Plants database, http://plants.usda.gov. July 25, 2009. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Fort Egbert and the Eagle Historic District, Results of Archaeological and Historic Research. December 1978. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, December 1979. Reprinted 1992. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory mapping, PSS1/4B. July 7, 2009. U.S. Geological Services. Quadrant map, Eagle D-1. Wien, Alan. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Wasilla, personal communication. June 24, July 1 and July 8, 2009. Wahrhaftig, Clyde. Physiographic Division of Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 482. United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1965. APPENDIX A This section consists of a series of documents delineating the history of the USACE Jurisdictional Determination APPENDIX B This section grants SHPO concurrence to the proposed actions. APPENDIX C PUBLIC NOTICE The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Draft Environmental Assessment FEMA-1843-DR-AK Village of Eagle, Alaska Replacement of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Notice is hereby given that FEMA plans to assist the Village of Eagle by providing partial funding for the construction of public facilities and infrastructure in the new Village of Eagle. Federal financial assistance would be provided pursuant to the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended (The Stafford Act). FEMA prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and FEMA’s implementing regulations. The Draft EA will be finalized after agency and public review and input. The EA evaluates alternatives for compliance with applicable environmental laws, including: Executive Orders No. 11988 (Floodplain Management), No. 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), No. 12898 (Environmental Justice), and No. 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). The alternatives evaluated include: (1) no action, (2) rehabilitation and reconstruction of the old Village Site (eliminated from consideration) and (3) construction for public facilities and infrastructure at the new Village site. This notice will constitute as the final notice as required by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. If no significant issues are identified during the comment period, FEMA will finalize the EA, issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and fund the project. The Draft EA is available for viewing at the following locations: The City of Eagle The (new) Village of Eagle Please submit your written comments to FEMA Region X Environmental Officer, Mark Eberlein no later than midnight on August 27, 2009. Comments can be submitted by: 1 Fax (attention Stanley KS Chun and/or Charles (Chuck) Diters) at (907) 786-3731 2 E-mailed: stanley.chun@dhs.gov and/or charles.diters@dhs.gov After the public comment period ends, the final EA and the FONSI will be available for viewing at: http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments/archives_index.shtm. VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS Cheryl L Bommarito Environmental Specialist (Contractor Support to FEMA) Donna D. Postma, Environment/Historic Preservation Specialist, FEMA Harold A. Legard, Environment/Historic Preservation Specialist, FEMA Village of Eagle, EA ii August 31, 2009