Final Environmental Assessment One-Time Construction and Demolition (C&D)Debris Landfill City of Eagle FEMA-1843-DR-AK July 30, 2009 U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region X 130 228th Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Eagle (City) 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 a one-time construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfill in Eagle, Alaska. The site is needed to dispose of C&D waste generated 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 and the State of Alaska is proposing to fund the remaining 25 percent. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 through 1508), and FEMA regulations for NEPA compliance (44 CFR Part 10), FEMA is required to evaluate the effects of the potential alternatives of a proposed action on the human and natural environments. Two alternatives for the Eagle C&D debris landfill project are compared in this Environmental Assessment (EA): a No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. Under NEPA, FEMA is obligated to evaluate the effects of the proposed project in an EA or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Following a public involvement period that ended on July 17, 2009, FEMA does not anticipate the need to prepare an EIS for this project. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared for the draft EA and this document serves as the final EA. 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) Program is to assist affected communities that request funding to recover from damages caused by disaster events that are declared a federal disaster by the President. The purpose of this project is to provide funds for the disposal of C&D materials in the community of Eagle. The community has determined there is a need for a debris site separate from their existing landfill in order to handle the substantial amount of C&D debris generated from the disaster. The debris needs to be removed from private and public property to assist in the rebuilding and recovery effort and to reduce the immediate public health and safety threat to residents of the community of Eagle. Without an alternative disposal site, the amount of debris would quickly overwhelm the existing landfill. 3.0 LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The community of Eagle includes both the City and the Village of Eagle (Village). The City is located on the Taylor Highway six miles west of the Alaska-Canadian border, on the left bank of the Yukon River at the mouth of Mission Creek. It encompasses one square mile of land and is southeast of the Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve. The Village is also along the river and encompasses 19.1 square miles of land, including both an old Village site three miles east of the City and a new Village site further southeast and upland from the old Village site. The old Village site was virtually destroyed by the moving ice jams and flooding that occurred during this disaster event. All sites are located in the Fairbanks Recording District for Alaska. See Figure 1 (below) for the community location. A full detailed location map of the proposed project is provided in Appendix A at the end of this document. Figure 1. Eagle, Alaska, location map. The general area has been the historical home to Han Kutchin Indians. Eagle 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 and the City's population declined to 178. In 2008, the City's population was listed as 129 and the Village as 64. 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' long by 75' 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. 4.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 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. Circumstances unique to small, remote communities in Alaska create challenges for basic waste disposal (and recycling) that are not experienced in the Lower 48 U.S. states (Outside). Waste is typically hauled by truck, snow machine or four-wheelers to unlined open dump facilities referred to as Class III Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF). Class III is a design standard unique to Alaska (allowed by federal exemption) that classifies landfills according to Alaska solid waste regulations under the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). For many communities, lands surrounding a rural village that are adequate for landfill development are private, public (state and federal), or Alaska Native corporation-owned lands, or lands held by the village or regional tribal government. It is often difficult for communities to identify and obtain new sites suitable for public works projects like landfill development, and this was the case for the community of Eagle. This EA includes two alternatives. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative, which would leave the community of Eagle without an alternative approved site to handle the substantial amount of disaster-related debris. The existing landfill would quickly be overwhelmed if debris is taken there. Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) is to construct a one-time C&D debris landfill at a site currently owned by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The land is in the process of being conveyed to the City for use as a disposal site. Varying layers of ownership for other land in the community brought equally varying and competing uses of land. The site chosen was picked due to its upland location and proximity to other sites currently being used for industrial purposes. Alternatives considered and dismissed included trucking or barging debris to other potential disposal sites. Barging was not considered a viable option, as there is very little barge traffic to and from Eagle since it is connected to the Taylor Highway. The closest alternative certified landfill by road is located 173 miles away in the community of Tok. The driving time each way would take approximately 6-1/2 hours and would require a large fleet of trucks not currently available in the community to haul the substantial volume of C&D debris. Even if enough trucks were contracted to haul the debris, the existing landfill in Tok would not have been able to handle the considerable volume of additional debris. Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to the City to construct a one-time C&D debris disposal landfill for the waste generated from the debris and refuse left behind from the Spring 2009 ice jams and flooding in Eagle. Existing conditions would continue and the community would need to determine how and where to handle the substantial amount of disaster-related debris located on private and public land. This alternative would not meet the community's needs to control and manage disaster debris. Alternative 2 - Construct a One-time C&D Debris Landfill (Proposed Action) A one-time C&D debris disposal landfill would be constructed to assist the community of Eagle in disposing of the debris and refuse generated from the Spring 2009 ice jams and flooding. The proposed site would be located on 1.3 acres currently owned by the DNR. The DNR is currently in the process of conveying the title for the site to the City. Due to time constraints related to the large volume of recovery work needed to be accomplished prior to winter setting in, the City has been given authorization to enter the site and build the landfill prior to formal conveyance of the property from the DNR. The City has applied for the site authorization required by the DEC for one-time disposal of inert waste. DEC approval is required prior to project implementation. The site is located .4 miles due south of the Yukon River between the City and the Village. It is .75 miles from the eastern corner of the air strip, .35 miles from the intersection of Front Street and Buckeye Creek Road, and 400 feet due west of Buckeye Creek Road. Its coordinates are 64.7749o North and -141.112o West in Township 2 South, Range 33 East, Section 4, of the Fairbanks Meridian. The site is located adjacent to a closed DNR asbestos storage site for the Old Eagle School (Alaska Land Survey No. 97-67) to the east, a DNR-owned Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT & PF) materials site to the north, and a Native Allotment site (Parcel 17144; U.S. Survey No. 8663; David brothers) to the west. In addition to the DNR land being conveyed to the City, permission has been given by the DNR to overlap the northwest corner of the proposed site onto the ADOT & PF materials site. A letter of non-objection was received from the Native Allotment owners and is on file with the DEC, DNR and the City. Access to the site will be along the southern boundary of the asbestos site. Figure 2. Landfill site location map (portion of USGS quad map Eagle D-1). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) assisted the community in the development of a debris removal and disposal management plan and the scope of work for this Proposed Action is included as part of that plan. A total of up to four debris disposal cells would be constructed within the 1.3 acres. The anticipated start date would be after July 31, 2009 and all but one cell will be closed by September 30, 2009. The remaining cell will be allowed to be left open until July 14, 2010. Excavation of the site is restricted by a 50-foot easement on the westerly boundary (adjacent to private land), and a 20-foot easement on the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries. These easements meet DNR setback requirements and will be maintained as undisturbed vegetative buffers, except as necessary for access through the asbestos landfill site. The entire site will be cleared of existing vegetation, except inside the setback easements. The total area that will be excavated to construct the cells is expected to be approximately 166 feet wide by 320 feet long, with a depth not to exceed 15 feet. The depth meets DEC requirements that the bottom of the disposal site be at least 4 feet above groundwater. Approximately 4,500 cubic yards of fill will be removed during excavation of the cells. Storage of excavated materials has been permitted by the DNR at the adjacent asbestos landfill and at the ADOT & PF materials site. Topsoil will be conserved and stored at the asbestos site, for later use as final cover during closure and restoration of the site. Some fill will be used to construct earthen berms approximately 3 feet high between the easements and the cells. The berms will serve as a security/safety measure and will also prevent surface and stormwater runoff from entering or leaving the excavated portion of the site. Excess fill may be sold under either a material sale purchase contract or used for public and charitable use, provided all applicable permits and authorizations are obtained. Waste will be inspected prior to disposal to ensure that only inert waste will be disposed at the site. Waste given the highest priority will be construction debris from the demolition of flood damaged residences. This will likely include building lumber, plumbing fixtures, piping, wiring, gypsum wallboard, flooring, carpeting, insulation, furniture items, concrete, glass, non-regulated asbestos containing materials (RACM), and scrap metal. Grinding of treated wood debris that can not be used as firewood has been approved by the DEC to help minimize the volume. Small woody debris and metal roofing has medium priority and will only be allowed if space dictates. General household waste and refuse will be prohibited at the site due to space limitations. Under the debris and waste management plan developed by the USACE, a system is in place to administer the handling and disposal of disaster-generated waste not accepted at the site. This includes white goods, cars and other motor vehicles destroyed, and any potential hazardous wastes. This debris removal will be funded separately and the disposal will be reviewed independently of this action. The City is required to ensure any improper or unauthorized waste disposal at the site will be cleaned up immediately, and any violations of regulations or DEC authorization conditions must be immediately addressed. Upon closure, the landfill will be capped with a minimum of 2 feet of fill and the top six inches of cover must promote successful revegetation of the site. The landfill will be graded and shaped to promote surface water runoff without erosion or ponding. Restoring vegetative cover is required within the first growing season and will use seeds and materials provided by the DNR Plant Materials Center to match the native vegetation adjacent to the site. After the landfill is closed and restored, earthen berms will be permanently placed across any road openings to deny access to the site. The City will submit a written closure report to the DEC no later than 180 days after the final debris is deposited. This will include documentation of the waste management area boundaries, amount of debris deposited, evidence that the required notation has been made to the property deed, and photographic documentation showing the integrity of the final cover. Additional information including a site drawing, full location map, site sketch with approximate cell locations and the concurrence letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) can be found in Appendix A at the end of this document. 5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The NEPA compliance process requires federal agencies to consider direct and indirect impacts to the environment. Table 1 (below) describes the environment and existing conditions in the project area 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 have effects that 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. Mitigation measures have been established in Section 9.0 to reduce any potential adverse effects from implementation of the Proposed Action. These measures are required as conditions of FEMA funding for the project. Table 1. Summary of Effects and Impact Intensity Air Quality Alternative 1 - No Action None/Negligible. There would be no effect to air quality, as no action would be taken. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. Negligible impact would be anticipated from increased dust during construction. Project design for the DEC authorization includes wet demolition practices to reduce the likelihood of dust generation. Federal and state air quality attainment levels would not be exceeded. Cultural Resources (National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106) Alternative 1 - No Action None/Negligible. FEMA would not fund the project and there would be no ground disturbance or clearing related to construction. No Action would have no significant effect on cultural resources. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. No known archaeological or historic sites exist in the vicinity of the landfill pit for the Proposed Action. 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 condition No. 4 under Section 9.0), 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 July 10, 2009 (see Appendix A). Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) Alternative 1 - No Action None/Negligible. Site is not located in a floodplain (see discussion under Alternative 2). Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. The community of Eagle does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and the area is not mapped for floodplains. However, using the best available data available provided by the U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and .5-foot orthomosaic mapping provided by Aero-Metric, Inc., FEMA was able to determine the 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 None/Negligible. There would not be any disturbance of the earth surface, nor the need for staging areas that could potentially affect wetlands. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. Hank Baij, USACE wetland delineator, visited the site on 7/23/09. He determined the site was non-wetlands by visual judgment. The site 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. The closest wetlands (Palustrine scrub shrub; persistent) are located >.2 miles north and .4 miles south of the proposed site and will not be affected by the proposed action. Any staging areas used for construction materials or debris must meet condition No. 5 in Section 9.0 of this document as a term and condition of FEMA funding. Hazardous Materials and Toxic Wastes Alternative 1 - No Action Minor to Moderate. Unauthorized staging and disposal of potentially hazardous materials (hazmats) may occur in the community due to the lack of a managed site with procedures for the handling and disposal of hazmats on or off site that meet DEC regulations. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Minor. Only inert waste will be accepted at the site. C&D waste containing more than 1 percent asbestos is regulated by the federal government and will not be allowed. Potential hazmats will be identified and diverted from the waste accepted at the site. The site management will be responsible, as part of their overall contract with the City, to select a location to store these materials safely for later removal that meets local and state requirements. The USACE is providing a full-time staff member in Eagle to oversee the implementation of the debris management scope of work. The DEC has been contracted by the State DHS&EM to assist the community in the handling and disposal of hazmats, as needed. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat) Alternative 1 - No Action 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 approximately .4 miles from the site. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. No adverse affect. There are no surface water bodies or streams within 200 feet of the proposed disposal 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 approximately .4 miles from the proposed site. Safety and Security Alternative 1 - No Action None/Negligible. There would not be any action to provide safety or security for. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Minor. Site security measures include the installation of a locking gate at the entry to the landfill and/or a site security attendant. Temporary fencing will be installed around the perimeter of the landfill, with signs regarding usage of the landfill and contact information. Public access and exposure to the landfill will be restricted by hiring a landfill operator/waste hauler who is properly trained in safety issues. After the landfill is capped and closed, earthen berms will be permanently placed across any road openings to deny access to the site. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Alternative 1 - No Action None/Negligible. No significant adverse effects. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. The proposed action 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. Threatened and Endangered Species Act (Section 7) Alternative 1 - No Action None/Negligible. There are no listed species or critical habitats in or near the affected area. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. No effect. There are no listed species or critical habitats in or near the project area. Vegetation and Wildlife Alternative 1 - No Action Minor. There would be no ground disturbance. No vegetation or wildlife at the site will be impacted if no action is taken. However, without an authorized and managed area, community members would likely establish alternative disposal sites with the potential to encroach on native habitat and vegetation due to lack of options elsewhere. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Minor. The proposed site 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. Caribou in the Eagle area are range/tundra type and would not likely be found at the site. No reptiles or amphibians occur in the area, and the site is not goat or sheep habitat. Moose, bear, shrews and a number of birds may wander through the area. Porcupines like aspens and may possibly inhabit the area. Construction at the site and 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. Upon closure, the affected area will be capped with topsoil saved from the excavation of the site. Re-seeding will be done with non-invasive vegetative seeds provided by the DNR Plant Materials Center to match the adjacent land. The landfill cover slopes will be graded to match the surrounding grade. Post-closure requirements by the DEC authorization include inspections, photographs and reporting to ensure that any problems with re- vegetation of the site will be addressed. Short-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are considered minor. Long-term impacts are expected to be negligible once the site is capped and re-vegetated. Water Quality Alternative 1 - No Action None/Negligible. There would not be any disturbance of the earth surface that would have the potential to impact water quality. Water quality and hydrology in the area would remain unaltered. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action None/Negligible. There are no surface water bodies, streams or sources of drinking water within 200 feet of the proposed disposal site. Groundwater at the site is estimated to be much deeper than 20 feet, based on nearby excavation at the adjacent DOT materials site to the north. The DEC requires that the bottom of the disposal site be at least 4 feet above groundwater, to protect water quality. The maximum depth of the site is 15 feet, therefore meeting this requirement. There is the potential for localized increase in sedimentation during construction. However, the vegetative buffer and earth berm surrounding the excavation and landfill (included in the project design) would prevent surface and stormwater runoff and also keep water from upgradient areas from entering the site. The proposed action 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. 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental effect of a proposed action 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. For No Action (Alternative 1), the possibility remains that community members would likely establish alternative debris disposal sites and would not be restricted to authorized and managed areas. This would lead to potential encroachment on native habitat and vegetation and increased erosion and sediment impacts in other areas of the community. There may also be health and safety concerns related to the disposal of hazmats in areas accessible to the public. The DEC authorization for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) requires a debris management plan to be implemented that addresses potential concerns, including the separate disposal of potential hazmats, measures to prevent surface and stormwater runoff, and provisions for safety and security for the site. However, potential cumulative effects could occur from the potential of continued indiscriminate use of the facility after the site has been capped and closed. Earthen berms are required to be permanently placed across any road openings to deny access to the site after it is closed, which would help to reduce this potential effect. The possibility also remains that the community may decide to expand disposal facilities near the site, based on previous use of the area. 8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FEMA's Draft EA was released and a public notice was posted throughout the City and Village on July 11, 2009, for a 72-hour public review and comment period, ending July 14, 2009. The notice identified the proposed action, location of the action, participants, location of the draft EA, and listed Barbara Gimlin, FEMA Environmental Specialist, 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. Barbara Gimlin, FEMA Environmental Specialist, visited the community of Eagle on July 14, 2009, and met with representatives of both the City and Village, along with many community members. The clear consensus throughout the community was that there are no significant concerns regarding the construction of the proposed landfill. The community would like to see the project proceed as soon as possible, as there is a substantial need to have a disaster debris disposal site in order to proceed with the recovery effort. The initial public notice will also serve as the final public notice and this EA will serve as the final EA. FEMA does not anticipate the need to prepare an EIS. 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. 9.0 MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED The following mitigation measures are required as conditions of FEMA funding: 1. The City is required to obtain and comply with all local, state and federal requirements for the Proposed Action. This includes a DEC authorization for the landfill and a temporary Land Use Permit by DNR until the conveyance of the site to the City is finalized. The DEC authorization includes, but is not limited to, accepting only inert waste at the site, restricting public access and exposure to the landfill, hiring a landfill operator/waste hauler who is properly trained in safety issues, providing site security and signs regarding usage, capping and closing the landfill upon completion, revegetating the site upon closure, and placing earthen berms across any road openings to deny access to the site once it is closed. The DNR may also require a material sale purchase contract and/or Public and Charitable Use authorization if gravel is removed from the site for other uses, and if debris is temporarily stored on DNR-managed lands prior to placing it in the landfill, a DNR permit would be required for that. 2. The applicant is responsible for selecting, implementing, monitoring and maintaining 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 it appropriately. Access roads and work areas must use existing ways whenever possible and minimize soil disturbance and compaction within 200 feet of a stream, water body, or wetland. 3. Large wood, native vegetation, and weed-free topsoil disturbed during the site preparation must be conserved on site whenever possible for site restoration. 4. 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. 5. 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. 10.0 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. Solid Waste Authorization for a One-Time Disposal of Inert Waste, Authorization No. SWINERT-0710. July 30, 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. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water. Land Use Permit No. ADL 418701 for the City of Eagle. July 30, 2009. 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. 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, 10 and 30, 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. 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. 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. 11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Barbara Gimlin, Environmental Specialist, FEMA Region X APPENDIX A Site Survey Diagram Site Location Map Site Sketch/Cell Locations SHPO Concurrence Letter