Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Grant Programs Directorate Programs July 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) provides an assessment of the expected environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the programs funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). The proposed implementation of GPD-funded grant programs would involve a wide variety of projects designed to improve the preparedness and readiness of public safety and first response agencies, as well as improve homeland security through increased protection of the Nation's critical infrastructure. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Grants and Training (G&T) was transformed into GPD on April 1, 2007, as a result of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. GPD is housed within FEMA to oversee the grant business operations, systems, training, and policy. FEMA coordinates the federal government's role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. BACKGROUND The preparedness grant programs managed by GPD enhance the preparedness and response capabilities of States, Territories, Tribes, private-sector and non-governmental first responders to respond to terrorist attacks and non-man made emergencies. These funds are intended to develop and administer planning, training, and equipment assistance programs for state and local emergency response agencies to better prepare them against the threat of terrorism as part of GPD's mission. GPD's mission is to manage Federal assistance to measurably improve capability and reduce the risks the Nation faces. GPD is responsible for the program management and administration of 19 preparedness grant programs. GPD will ensure all of their preparedness grant programs are aligned to, and are measurable against, the National Preparedness Guidelines and the National Priorities as authorized by the H.R. 10, 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act. These preparedness grant programs support the achievement of the National Preparedness Goal by providing funds for State and local homeland security efforts, such as planning, equipment purchase, protection of critical infrastructure by reinforcing physical security and access controls, and hiring and training first response personnel. Currently, the grants administered by GPD funds are provided to all 56 States and Territories. The events of September 11, 2001 highlighted critical needs in the Nation's security safeguards and systems. Effective preparedness is a critical precondition of successful response. In order to best equip State and local governments, as well quasi-governmental private entities, to successfully respond to emergencies, GPD is committed to providing funds that will allow these entities to improve preparedness. These grant programs are part of a comprehensive set of measures authorized by Congress and implemented by FEMA to help strengthen the Nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. PURPOSE AND NEED In order to obtain the desired higher level of readiness, State, Territory, Tribal, and private-sector and non-governmental partners identified the need to improve their preparedness capabilities. A number of activities have been identified by stakeholders enabling them to make meaningful improvements in national preparedness. Funds from GPD grant programs would be used to implement programs that would satisfy a diverse range of identified needs, both programmatic and site-specific. Programmatic needs include integrating preparedness programs and training into existing public safety initiatives, improving emergency-response planning, implementing Statewide Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource (CI/KR) protection programs, and establishing protocols to effectively direct the flow of terrorism and homeland security information. Site- specific needs include physical security enhancements that would improve infrastructure security and resiliency, equipment and infrastructure to enhance jurisdictional capabilities to share critical voice information in tactical settings with other jurisdictions, upgrades to emergency response systems, and improvements in threat detection, such as radiological and nuclear. SCOPE OF THE PEA This PEA examines the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the GPD-funded grant programs. This document has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the FEMA regulations for implementing NEPA. A programmatic environmental document, such as this PEA, is prepared when an agency is proposing to carry out a broad action, program, or policy. FEMA has determined that the grant programs funded by GPD are a broad action with nationwide implications. The programmatic approach creates a comprehensive, global analytical framework that assesses impacts expected from the program as a whole. It also supports subsequent site-specific environmental evaluations, such as Records of Environmental Considerations (REC), Tiered Site-Specific Environmental Assessments (SEA), or stand-alone EAs, that may be required to determine the nature and extent of impacts resulting from individual actions at specific locations. It also allows FEMA to identify those project types that will not have any impact to the environment and distinguish them from those that may require further analysis. This PEA is intended to examine the various project types funded by GPD. FEMA has removed communication towers from the project types evaluated in this PEA in order to address substantive comments regarding towers received during the public comment period on the Draft PEA (April 8, 2010 - May 10, 2010). FEMA will develop a supplemental EA that addresses towers and provide another public comment opportunity. The project types examined in this Final PEA have been organized into the following seven groups: Planning Planning projects would enable grantees to engage in preparedness activities such as: * Prioritize needs * Update preparedness strategies * Allocate resources * Deliver preparedness programs across disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire, Emergency Medical Services, public health, behavioral health, public works, agriculture, and information technology) and levels of government. These efforts include the development of policies, plans, procedures, mutual aid agreements, strategies, and other publications that comply with relevant laws, regulations, and guidance and are necessary to perform assigned missions and tasks. Management and Administration Activities allowable under the GPD grant programs regarding management and administrative actions allow grantees to enhance their preparedness through the hiring of personnel, publication of guidance documents, and other management activities that build capacity. Training States, Territories, and urban areas are encouraged to use GPD funds to develop a State/Territory homeland security training program. These training programs, primarily classroom-based, enable public safety, preparedness, and first responder agencies at all levels to engage in activities that build capacity and capability at all levels, enhancing preparedness. Training-related costs under GPD may include the establishment, support, conduct, and attendance of training. Training topics may include, but are not limited to, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) terrorism and catastrophic events, cyber/agriculture/food security, intelligence gathering and analysis, citizen and community preparedness, and training for volunteers. For a listing of activities that are allowable expenses, please refer to the relevant year's grant guidance. Exercises Exercise scenarios eligible for funding would be based on the Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan. These exercises, both discussion- and operations-based, enhance readiness by allowing public safety, preparedness, and first responder agencies at all levels to engage in tabletop and field exercises that allow them to rehearse real-life scenarios in order to better prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Exercise scenarios may include CBRNE, cyber, agricultural, and natural or technological disasters. Grant funds can be used to design, develop, conduct, and evaluate terrorism prevention-related exercises. Purchase of Mobile and Portable Equipment The GPD grant programs allow for equipment purchases within one of the 21 allowable equipment categories. The Allowable Equipment List (AEL) can be found at https://www.rkb.us/mel.cfm?subtypeid=549. The category of mobile and portable equipment is defined as devices that do not require any installation (e.g. attached to a building, bridge, pier, etc.) and may be transported from site to site, such as hand-held radios, personal protective equipment (PPE), cellular phones, dive equipment, boats, response vehicles, identification cards, and other similar devices that do not require installation. Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities GPD grant funds can be used to improve security, and other essential services at existing facilities through renovation, retrofitting, or modification of existing structures. This activity does not cover the demolition or removal of an existing structure and its replacement. Projects of this type involve activities that are relatively minor alterations to the interior or exterior of existing facilities, and may or may not require ground disturbance. Fixed equipment includes, but is not limited to, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, bollards, lighting, fencing, identification card readers, tire puncture treadles, enhanced communications equipment, loud speakers, warning sirens, and motion detection equipment. The installation of any fixed equipment on communication towers is not included in this category. Eligible facilities under the GPD grant programs may include: security guard buildings, emergency operation centers (EOCs), waterside facilities (e.g., dock, boathouse, pier, waterside law enforcement facility), court houses, police and fire stations, schools, places of worship, medical facilities, stadiums, and transportation infrastructure (e.g. bus and railway stations, bridges, tunnels, etc.). Actions analyzed under this alternative may or may not involve ground disturbance. Ground disturbance would typically be associated with installation of utilities or fixed equipment, or enlarging a facility. New Construction Certain GPD grant programs allow for the construction of various structures to house and enable the missions of various first responder, public safety, and security entities. These facilities and structures play a significant role in enhancing preparedness and response capability for these organizations. New facilities that may be built using specific GPD grant funds include: security guard buildings, EOCs, fire stations, and docks/piers. The types of new construction covered under this project type can occur at previously undisturbed, disturbed, or developed sites. All associated needs for a new facility, including utility connections, fencing, lighting, access roads, equipment/construction staging areas, parking and security measures, etc., are also covered under the analysis of this project type, and are considered to contribute to the entire project footprint. In order to accurately assess the environmental impacts of this project type, all features of the proposed development must be analyzed. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) The No Action Alternative in the environmental analysis is defined as maintaining the status quo. The No Action Alternative evaluates the effects of not providing eligible Federal assistance for a specific action and provides a benchmark against which the action alternatives may be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, GPD would not implement the programs and would not provide Federal grant funding for security and response measures to improve preparedness. It is assumed that the proposed program or project would not be implemented by the State, Territory, local, or Tribal government or private entity due to lack of Federal funding. Alternative 2 (Program Implementation) Programs All actions considered in this PEA assume that the Federal action is: * Required to improve national preparedness and homeland security * Funded under one of the GPD grant programs Homeland security grant programs are dynamic, and are constantly evolving to better meet demonstrated homeland security needs. As a result, allowable expenses and actions under grant programs may change from year to year. The actions described and analyzed in this PEA are not intended to provide a definitive list of allowable expenses and actions for each grant program, rather they are intended to illustrate the types of expenses and actions that may be allowable. Grant guidance for any given year specifically outlines allowable expenses and actions for each specific grant program. Projects Potential actions available for funding under the GPD grant programs have been divided into seven project types: Planning, Management and Administration, Training, Exercises, Purchase of Mobile and Portable Equipment, Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities, and New Construction. These eight general project types are inclusive of actions that are central to GPD's mission. Actions analyzed in this PEA are not intended to supersede allowable grant expenditures as specified in grant guidance for any given year. Under Alternative 2, all GPD- funded grant programs would be implemented simultaneously. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Examination of the seven major project types revealed that renovation/modification/retrofitting of existing critical infrastructure facilities, and projects involving new construction have the potential to adversely impact the environment as they would likely involve ground disturbing activities and modification of potentially historic structures. Through this PEA, FEMA has determined that preparation of REC, a site-specific SEA or stand-alone EA will be required for the purchase of sonars, modifications of existing facilities, and new construction activities. Projects involving planning, training, discussion-based exercises and functional exercises, management and administration, and the purchase of mobile and portable equipment (except for sonars) would not require further NEPA documentation. Consequences of Alternative 1: The No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no GPD-funded homeland security projects would occur across any of the eight project types defined and analyzed in this PEA. Existing deficiencies and vulnerabilities in public safety, preparedness, and readiness would persist. This could result in an adverse effect on human health and safety. Consequences of Alternative 2: Program Implementation Alternative 2 would not have any significant impact on any of the resources areas analyzed for those project types that meet the criteria established in Section 5, Environmental Consequences, and summarized above and in Tables ES-1 through ES-3. Alternative 2 would also have beneficial impacts to human health and safety by improving preparedness, reducing vulnerabilities, and allowing State, Territorial, Tribal, local, quasi-public, and private entities to make meaningful upgrades to the Nation's homeland security infrastructure. Table ES-1: Summary Table: Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities Criteria Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Program Implementation Land Use No effects. There would be no effects to land use from renovation, modification, and retrofitting of existing facilities because land use would not change. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for obtaining coastal consistency determinations when applicable. Geology and soils No effects. There would be no significant impacts from or to geology and soils from this project type. Projects in areas susceptible to seismic, volcanic, tsunami, landslide or mudslide activity, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes may require the use of certain engineering techniques or consultation with State or Federal agencies to ensure their protection. FEMA would encourage avoidance of locating projects in these hazard areas. Ground disturbance associated with this project type would be limited and would not be significant. Ground disturbance for this project type would be less than one (1) acre. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures found in Section 7.2 of this PEA to minimize the effects of the project on soils. Water Resources No effects. There would be no significant effects to water resources from this project type. Grantees and subgrantees would be responsible for securing and meeting the conditions of water quality permits such as NPDES and state permits. In addition, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures found in Section 7.2 of this PEA, which would reduce construction-related effects (e.g. erosion, sedimentation) on water resources. Floodplains No effects. Projects within floodplains will trigger requirements under 44 CFR Part 9. FEMA is required to identify practicable alternatives outside the floodplain or minimize the project's impacts from or to floodplains. Projects located within the floodplain will be documented through a Tiered SEA. No significant impacts to or from floodplains are expected from this project type. Wetlands No effects. Projects located near or within wetlands may trigger the requirements under 44 CFR Part 9. FEMA is required to identify practicable alternatives that do not affect wetlands and minimize the project's impacts to wetlands. Projects in or affecting wetlands will be documented through a Tiered SEA. In addition, grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing and meeting the conditions of Federal and State permits required for the filling of wetlands. No significant impacts to wetlands are expected from this project type. Biological Resources No effects. No significant impacts are expected on vegetation. No significant impacts are expected to aquatic animals. Projects in floodplains and wetlands would require compliance with 44 CFR 9. FEMA will engage in the ESA Section 7 consultation process with FWS or NMFS if there are threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that would be affected by the project. A Tiered SEA is required if formal consultation is triggered. Human Health and Safety There would be adverse effects to human health and safety because existing vulnerabilities in public safety and homeland security preparedness would persist. There would be no effect on hazardous materials. There would be no significant effect from the use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that may be associated with renovation, modification, and retrofitting of existing facilities. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing and meeting conditions of permits and requirements at the Federal, State, Tribal and/or local level for the handling of these materials. These facility upgrades would have a beneficial effect on public safety. Low income and minority populations No effect. No significant impacts are expected on minority and low-income populations. Projects are intended to improve preparedness, emergency response and public safety capabilities and therefore would have a long-term beneficial impact on all segments of the population. Historic Properties No effect. No significant impacts are expected to historic properties. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures in Section 7 of this PEA to reduce potential adverse effects. FEMA will engage in the Section 106 review process for projects with potential effects to historic properties. Projects with adverse effects to historic properties may require a Tiered SEA. Infrastructure No effect. Short-term adverse construction- related effects, such as increases in wastes, increases in construction vehicle traffic, and disruption of utilities services, would not be significant. No significant operations-related effects are expected. Air Quality No effect. No significant construction-related effects are expected, and any effects would be short- term. Interior renovations would have no effect. No significant operations-related effects are expected. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures found in Section 7.2 of this PEA. Noise No effect. No significant construction-related effects are expected and increases in noise levels are expected to occur primarily during daytime hours. FEMA will document those actions that would result in noise levels exceeding 70 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time and will take place less than 200 feet from sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, hospitals, and residential areas) through a Tiered SEA. Visual Quality No effect. Short-term adverse construction-related effects would not be significant. Long-term adverse effects may occur for projects involving external renovations and would not be significant. Climate Change No effect Short-term adverse construction-related effects would not be significant. Long-term effects from operations-related emissions increases would not be significant. Table ES-2: Summary Table: New Construction Criteria Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Program Implementation Land Use No effects. No significant impacts to land use are expected. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for coordinating land use changes with local governments and obtain applicable State, Tribal, and local construction and zoning permits. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for obtaining coastal consistency determinations. A Tiered SEA is required for projects that score more than 160 points on the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD-1006). Geology, Soils, and Seismicity No effects. There would be no significant impacts from or to geology and soils from this project type. Projects in area susceptible to seismic, volcanic, tsunamis, landslide or mudslide activity, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes may require the use of certain engineering techniques or consultation with State or Federal agencies to ensure their protection. FEMA would encourage avoidance of the projects in these hazard areas. Ground disturbance associated with this project type would be limited and would not be significant. Ground disturbance for this project type would be less than five (5) acres. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures found in Section 7.2 of this PEA that would minimize the effects of the project to soils. A Tiered SEA is required for projects with greater than five (5) acres of ground disturbance. Water Resources No effects. There would be no significant effects to water resources from this project type. Grantees and subgrantees would be responsible for securing and meeting the conditions of water quality permits such as NPDES and state permits. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures found in Section 7.2 of this PEA which would reduce construction-related effects (e.g. erosion, sedimentation) on water resources. Floodplains No effects. Projects within floodplains will trigger requirements under 44 CFR Part 9. FEMA is required to identify practicable alternatives outside the floodplain or minimize the project's impacts from or to floodplains. Projects located within the floodplain will be documented through a Tiered SEA. No significant impacts to or from floodplains are expected from this project type. Wetlands No effects. Projects located near or within wetlands may trigger the requirements under 44 CFR Part 9. FEMA is required to identify practicable alternatives that do not affect wetlands and minimize the project's impacts to wetlands. Projects in or affecting wetlands will be documented through a Tiered SEA. In addition, grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing and meeting the conditions of Federal and State permits required for the filling of wetlands. No significant impacts to wetlands are expected from this project type. Biological Resources No effects. No significant impacts are expected on vegetation. Projects involving removal of more than five (5) acres of woody vegetation require a Tiered SEA. No significant impacts are expected on aquatic animals. Projects in floodplains and wetlands require compliance with 44 CFR 9. FEMA will engage in the ESA Section 7 consultation process with FWS or NMFS if there are threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that would be affected by the project. A Tiered SEA is required if formal consultation is triggered. Human Health and Safety There would be adverse effects to human health and safety because existing vulnerabilities in public safety and homeland security preparedness would persist. There would be no effect on hazardous materials. There would be no significant effect from the use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes associated with this project type. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing and meeting conditions of permits and requirements at the Federal, State, Tribal and/or local level for the handling of these materials. The construction of new facilities and structures related to preparedness and homeland security missions would have a beneficial effect on public safety. Low income and minority populations No effect. No significant impacts are expected on minority and low-income populations. New construction projects are intended to improve emergency response and public safety capabilities and therefore would have a long-term beneficial impact on all segments of the population. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for demonstrating a reasonable effort to provide opportunities for public involvement before a proposal for a new construction project is submitted to FEMA; this will not negate the need for a public comment period on an SEA after it has been completed, however it may help to shorten the required timeline. A Tiered SEA is required for projects that will have disproportionate high and adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income populations. Historic Properties No effect. No significant impacts are expected to historic properties. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures in Section 7 of this PEA to reduce potential adverse effects. FEMA will engage in the Section 106 review process for projects with potential effects to historic properties. Projects with adverse effects to historic properties may require a Tiered SEA. Infrastructure No effect. Short-term adverse construction- related effects, such as increases in wastes, increases in construction vehicle traffic, and disruption of utilities services, would not be significant. No significant operations-related effects are expected. Air Quality No effect. No significant construction-related effects are expected, and any effects would be short- term. No significant operations-related effects are expected. FEMA would require grantees and subgrantees to follow applicable mitigation measures found in Section 7.2 of this PEA. Projects in non-attainment or maintenance areas that trigger conformity analysis and major stationary source projects in attainment area require a Tiered SEA. Noise No effect. No significant construction-related effects are expected and increases in noise levels are expected to occur primarily during daytime hours. FEMA will document those actions that would result in noise levels exceeding 70 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time and will take place less than 200 feet from sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, hospitals, and residential areas) through a Tiered SEA. Visual Quality No effect. Short-term adverse construction-related effects would not be significant. New facilities and structures may cause long-term adverse effects and would not be significant. Climate Change No effect Short-term adverse construction-related effects would not be significant. Long-term effects from operations-related emissions increases would not be significant. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 BACKGROUND ES-1 PURPOSE AND NEED ES-2 SCOPE OF THE PEA ES-2 Planning ES-2 Management and Administration ES-3 Training ES-3 Exercises ES-3 Purchase of Mobile and Portable Equipment ES-3 Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities ES-4 New Construction ES-4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED ACTION ES-4 Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) ES-4 Alternative 2 (Program Implementation) ES-5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ES-5 Consequences of Alternative 1: The No Action Alternative ES-5 Consequences of Alternative 2: Program Implementation ES-6 LIST OF ACRONYMS IV SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 OVERVIEW 1 1.2 PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 1.3 ACTIVITIES EVALUATED IN THE PEA 2 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 4 SECTION TWO PURPOSE AND NEED 5 2.1 PURPOSE 5 2.2 NEED 5 SECTION THREE ALTERNATIVES 6 3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION 6 3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 6 3.2.1 Programs 6 3.2.2 Projects 7 3.2.2.1 Planning 7 3.2.2.2 Management and Administration 7 3.2.2.3 Training 7 3.2.2.4 Exercises 8 3.2.2.5 Purchase of Mobile and Portable Equipment 8 3.2.2.6 Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities 8 3.2.2.7 New Construction, including Replacement, of Facilities 9 SECTION FOUR AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 11 4.1 LAND USE 11 4.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 12 4.2.1 Geology and Soils 12 4.2.2 Seismicity 13 4.3 WATER RESOURCES 13 4.4 FLOODPLAINS 15 4.5 WETLANDS 16 4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 17 4.6.1 Vegetation 17 4.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 17 4.6.3 Listed Species, Critical Habitat and Special-Status Species 19 4.7 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 20 4.8 MINORITY AND LOW INCOME POPULATIONS 21 4.9 HISTORIC PROPERTIES 22 4.10 INFRASTRUCTURE 25 4.11 AIR QUALITY 25 4.12 NOISE 27 4.13 VISUAL QUALITY 28 4.14 CLIMATE CHANGE 28 SECTION FIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 31 5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 38 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 38 5.2.1 Programs 38 5.2.2 Project Types 39 5.2.2.1 Planning 39 5.2.2.2 Training 39 5.2.2.3 Management and Administration 40 5.2.2.4 Exercises 40 5.2.2.4.1. Discussion-based exercises and functional exercises 40 5.2.2.4.2. Drills and Full-Scale exercises 41 5.2.2.5 Mobile and Portable Equipment (No Installation) 41 5.2.2.6 Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities 42 5.2.2.7 New Construction 51 5.2.2.7.1. New construction, including replacement, on previously developed or disturbed sites 51 5.2.2.7.2. New construction on undeveloped or undisturbed sites 60 SECTION SIX CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 69 6.1 Alternative 1: No Action 69 6.2 Alternative 2: Program Implementation 69 6.2.1 Programs 69 6.2.2 Projects 69 6.2.2.1 Construction Actions and Climate Change 70 SECTION SEVEN MITIGATION 71 7.1 Measures to avoid impacts to the human environment 71 7.2 Minimization Measures for ground disturbing/ construction activities of up to five (5) acres 71 SECTION EIGHT DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 73 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 74 REFERENCES 75 LIST OF PREPARERS 77 List of Appendices Appendix A Description of GPD Grant Programs Appendix B FEMA CATEXs and Applicability to GPD-Funded Actions Appendix C Construction and Air Quality Impacts Appendix D Scope of EHP Review of GPD-Funded Actions Appendix E Adoption of Other (non-FEMA) EHP Reviews for a GPD-Funded Action Appendix F Template of FEMA's Record of Environmental Considerations (REC) Figures Figure 1-1: Use of PEA in FEMA's Review Tables Table 4-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table 5-1: Thresholds for SEA and EIS Determinations Table 5-2: Construction Site Pollutants (Water Quality) Table 5-3: Construction and Air Quality Impacts (Emissions) Table 5-4: Construction and Noise Impacts List of Acronyms ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AEL Authorized Equipment List AFG Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program AGL above ground level APE Area of Potential Effect AQCR air quality control region BA Biological Assessment BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice BZPP Buffer Zone Protection Program CAA Clean Air Act CATEX categorical exclusion CBP Customs and Border Protection CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CBRNE chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System CCP Citizen Corps Program CCTV closed-circuit television CEDAP Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFATS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard CFR Code of Federal Regulations CI/KR Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource CO carbon monoxide COI chemicals of interest CTGP Competitive Training Grant Program CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB decibel dB re 1 µPa2 -s decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared second DHS Department of Homeland Security DOI U.S. Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EHP Environmental and Historic Preservation EHS Extremely Hazardous Substance EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grants Program EO Executive Order EOC Emergency Operations Center EOP Emergency Operating Plan EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FCC Federal Communications Commission FIP Federal Implementation Plan FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FP&S Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program FSGS Ferry Security Grant Supplemental FSM Federated States of Micronesia GCR General Conformity Rule GHG Green House Gases GPD Grant Programs Directorate G&T Office of Grants and Training Hz hertz HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System IBSGP Intercity Bus Security Grant Program ID identification IPP Infrastructure Protection Program kHz kilohertz LETPP Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter M&A Management and Administration mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MMRS Metropolitan Medical Response System MMTCO2 Million Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOX nitrogen oxides NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOS National Ocean Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service of the U.S. Department of Interior NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRF National Response Framework NRP National Response Plan NWP Nationwide Permits O3 ozone OC Operating Center PA Programmatic Agreement or Program Analyst Pb lead PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PM10 particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter PPE Personal Protective Equipment ppm parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSGP Port Security Grant Program RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Record of Environmental Consideration RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SHSP State Homeland Security Program SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide STQ Screening Threshold Quantities TCP Traditional Cultural Property THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TIP Tribal Implementation Plan TSGP Transit Security Grant Program TSP Trucking Security Program UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOC volatile organic compound Section One Introduction 1.1 Overview On December 17, 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 on National Preparedness. Under the Directive, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies and in consultation with State, Territory, and local governments, was tasked with developing a national domestic all-hazards National Preparedness Goal (the Goal). Federal departments and agencies will work to achieve this goal by (a) providing for effective, efficient, and timely delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to State and local governments, and (b) supporting efforts to ensure first responders are prepared to respond to major events. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Grants and Training (G&T) was transformed into GPD on April 1, 2007, as a result of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. GPD is housed within FEMA to oversee the grant business operations, systems, training, and policy. FEMA supports the Nation's citizens and first responders to ensure that the Nation works together to build, sustain, and improves its capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. 1.2 Programmatic Environmental Assessment The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., (NEPA) mandates that Federal agencies take into account the effects of their actions, including programs, regulations, policies, and grant-funded specific projects, on the quality of the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has established NEPA Implementing Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 et seq. for meeting these requirements, and each Federal agency has developed its own implementing procedures specific to its mission. FEMA's procedures are found at 44 CFR Part 10. They contain a list of actions, referred to as Categorical Exclusions (CATEX), that typically do not individually or cumulatively have significant impacts on the human environment. An action that would normally qualify for a CATEX may have extraordinary circumstances that disqualify it from the CATEXs applicability. FEMA's list of extraordinary circumstances can be found at 44 CFR 10.8(d)(3). Actions that are not covered by a CATEX or actions covered by a CATEX that have unresolved extraordinary circumstances require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA to determine the nature and extent of impacts of the action and determine whether the action has significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required when an action will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR §§ 1500.4(i), 1502.4 and 1502.20 encourage the development of program-level NEPA environmental documents and tiering for eliminating repetitive discussions and to focus on the issues specific to the subsequent action. FEMA has developed this Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) under this CEQ authority. This PEA will also facilitate FEMA's compliance with other environmental and historic preservation requirements by providing a framework to address the impacts of actions typically funded to aid in national preparedness. FEMA coordinates and integrates to the maximum extent possible the review and compliance process required under similar requirements such as the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the eight step process of the Executive Order 11988 and 11990, and others. This PEA provides a framework on how FEMA integrates these requirements with NEPA. Finally, the PEA provides the public and decision-makers with the information required to understand and evaluate the potential environmental consequences of these national preparedness actions. This PEA meets the NEPA goals of impact identification and disclosure and addresses the need to streamline the NEPA review process in the interest of national preparedness. 1.3 Activities Evaluated in the PEA This PEA evaluates typical security enhancement and associated preparedness activities proposed under the GPD grant programs. A wide range of activities may be funded by GPD grants, with varying expected levels of impacts. They may range from relatively small actions such as the purchase of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and handheld radios to the construction of fire stations and emergency operations centers (EOCs). While some activities are not expected to have any impact on the quality of the human environment, others may have the potential to impact a variety of environmental resources and/or historic properties. Allowable expenses under most GPD grants include such activities as: * Planning * Management and Administration * Training * Exercises * Purchase of Mobile and Portable Equipment * Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities * New Construction The analysis in this PEA leverages FEMA's experiences regarding environmental impacts that can be expected from actions funded by GPD grant programs. It is also based on a review of scientific literature, consultation with regulatory agencies, and expert opinion. FEMA will use the analysis in this PEA to describe program-level environmental impacts of GPD's grant programs, and define those project types for which no environmental impacts are expected and for which no further NEPA documentation is required. Furthermore, the PEA will define those proposed GPD-funded project types that would require further analysis before a determination of environmental impacts could reasonably be made. The NEPA compliance review of specific projects funded by GPD could result in projects (1) needing to be modified or redesigned to reduce or eliminate environmental impact, (2) needing a Record of Environmental Considerations (REC) to account for the resolution of requirements under other laws such as NHPA, ESA, EO 11988, and the resolution of other extraordinary circumstances, (3) requiring a Site-specific Environmental Assessment (SEA) tiered from this PEA, (4) requiring an individual site-specific EA to evaluate the potential for environmental impact, or (5) needing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the extent of the environmental impact of the project. Figure 1-1: Use of PEA in FEMA's Review 1.4 Public Involvement FEMA issued a 30-day public notice for the Draft PEA in the Federal Register between April 8 - May 10, 2010 (see Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010). Joint comments were submitted by CTIA -The Wireless Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, and PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association, as well as the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, Inc., concerning communication towers. The comments received were regarding the mitigation of impacts of towers on migratory birds (avian collisions and mortality) and concerns about duplicative environmental and historic preservation reviews between FEMA and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These were the only comments received on the Draft PEA. Consequently, FEMA removed towers as a project type considered in the Final PEA and will prepare an SEA to address towers. FEMA will offer a 15-day public comment opportunity on the draft SEA for towers. For Tiered SEAs, FEMA will typically require a 15-day public comment period unless FEMA determines that a longer period is needed because of public controversy or the level of environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of potential disproportionate high and adverse impacts of new construction projects on low-income and minority populations, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to provide public involvement opportunities before submitting the project proposal to FEMA for review. These opportunities may take the form of city council or town hall meetings, newspaper notices, or other activities that provide information about a proposed project in a public forum. Meeting minutes, newspaper proofs with attached comments received on the action, or other records may serve as acceptable documentation for this public involvement requirement. This pre-submittal public involvement process will not replace the public comment period required for Tiered SEAs; however it will enable FEMA to determine whether the project may be controversial. Section Two Purpose and Need 2.1 Purpose The preparedness grant programs managed by GPD enhance the capabilities of States, Territories, Tribes, private-sector and non-governmental first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural and man-made disasters, and terrorist attacks. These funds are intended to develop and administer planning, training, personnel, equipment, and exercise assistance efforts for state and local emergency response agencies to better prepare them against the threat of terrorism as part of GPD's mission. GPD's mission is to manage Federal assistance to measurably improve capability and reduce the risks the Nation faces. GPD is responsible for the program management and administration of 19 preparedness grant programs. These preparedness programs support the achievement of the National Preparedness Goal by providing funds for State and local homeland security efforts, such as planning, equipment purchase, protection of critical infrastructure by reinforcing physical security and access controls, and hiring and training first responders. Currently, GPD grants and associated funding are administered to all 56 States and Territories. 2.2 Need The events of September 11, 2001 highlighted critical needs in the Nation's security safeguards and systems. Effective preparedness is a critical precondition of successful response. State, Territory, Tribal, and local governments, as well as quasi-governmental private entities, need supplemental funds to improve preparedness and to successfully respond to emergencies. Programmatic needs include integrating preparedness programs and training into existing public safety initiatives, improving emergency-response planning, implementing Statewide Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource (CI/KR) protection programs, and establishing protocols to effectively direct the flow of terrorism and homeland security information. Site-specific needs include physical security enhancements that would improve infrastructure security and resiliency, equipment and infrastructure to enhance jurisdictional capabilities, public safety interoperable communications, upgrades to emergency response systems, and improvements in intrusion and threat detection, such as radiological and nuclear. Section Three Alternatives This section describes the proposed actions to address the purpose and need. 3.1 Alternative 1: No Action FEMA has included a No Action Alternative to evaluate the potential impacts of not providing eligible Federal assistance and to provide a benchmark against which the proposed alternative may be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, GPD would not implement the programs and would not provide Federal grant assistance for security and response measures to improve preparedness. It is assumed that the proposed program or project would not be implemented by the State, Territory, local, or Tribal government or private entity due to lack of Federal funding. 3.2 Alternative 2: Program Implementation 3.2.1 Programs GPD grant programs are dynamic and are constantly evolving to better meet demonstrated homeland security needs. Congress appropriates funding annually for GPD grant programs and establishes priorities for the use of these funds. As a result, allowable expenses and projects under grant programs may change from year to year. Grant guidance for any given year specifically outlines allowable expenses and actions for each grant program; actions analyzed in this PEA are not intended to supersede allowable grant expenditures as specified in grant guidance for any given year. Currently, GPD administers 19 different grant programs. Below is a list of current programs. SHSP State Homeland Security Program Tribal SHSP Tribal State Homeland Security Program OPSG Operation Stone Garden Security Grant TSGP Transportation Security Grant Program TSP Trucking Security Program UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant IPR Intercity Passenger Rail (AMTRAK) EOC Emergency Operations Center MMRS Metropolitan Medical Response System IECGP Interoperability Emergency Communication Grant Program BZPP Buffer Zone Protection Program FRSGP Freight Rail System Grant Program DLSGP Drivers License Security Grant Program CCP Citizen Corps Program NSGP Nonprofit Security Grant Program PSGP Port Security Grant Program IBSGP Intercity Bus Security Grant Program AFG Assistance to Firefighters Grant Appendix A provides a brief description of each one of these programs. New programs developed that meet the Purpose and Need in Section Two and the impacts analysis in Section Five will be covered by this PEA. Should any of the grant programs developed or administered by GPD at the time of the development of this PEA be transferred to another office within FEMA, this PEA will remain applicable to those programs. 3.2.2 Projects Potential actions eligible for funding under the GPD grant programs have been divided into the following seven project types for discussion and analysis in this PEA: Planning, Management and Administration, Training, Exercises, Purchase of Mobile or Portable Equipment, Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities, and New Construction. 3.2.2.1 Planning Planning projects would enable grantees to engage in preparedness-related activities such as: * Prioritization of preparedness needs, * Preparation or update of preparedness strategies, * Allocation of resources * Delivery of preparedness programs across disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire, Emergency Medical Services, public health, behavioral health, public works, agriculture, and information technology) and levels of government. These efforts include the development of policies, plans, procedures, mutual aid agreements, strategies, and other publications that comply with relevant laws, regulations, and guidance and are necessary to perform assigned missions and tasks. 3.2.2.2 Management and Administration Activities allowable under the GPD grant programs regarding management and administrative actions allow grantees to enhance their preparedness through the hiring of personnel, publication of guidance documents, and other management activities that build capacity. Projects of this type include: * Hiring planners and training program coordinators, exercise managers, and grant administrators * Overtime and backfill expenses for personnel * Regular-time operational costs for existing positions that are assigned to full-time counterterrorism duties * Development, revision, documentation, and/or distribution of regulations, directives, manuals, information bulletins, and other guidance documents * Technical assistance activities that involve no resources other than manpower and/or funding * Other personnel, administrative, fiscal and management activities that involve no resources other than manpower and/or funding 3.2.2.3 Training States, Territories, Tribes, and urban areas are encouraged to apply for GPD assistance to develop a State/Territory homeland security training program. These training programs, primarily classroom-based, enable public safety, preparedness, and first responder agencies at all levels to engage in activities that build capacity and capability at all levels, enhancing preparedness. Training-related costs under GPD may include the establishment, support, conduct, and attendance of training. Training topics may include, but are not limited to, CBRNE national security threats and catastrophic events, cyber/agriculture/food security, intelligence gathering and analysis, citizen and community preparedness, and training for volunteers. For a listing of activities that are allowable expenses, refer to the relevant year's grant guidance. 3.2.2.4 Exercises Exercise scenarios eligible for funding would be based on a grantee's Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan. These exercises, both discussion- and operations-based, enhance readiness by allowing public safety, preparedness, and first responder agencies at all levels to engage in tabletop and field exercises that allow them to rehearse real-life scenarios in order to better prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Exercise scenarios may include CBRNE, cyber, agricultural, and natural or technological disasters. Grant funds can be used to design, develop, conduct, and evaluate terrorism prevention-related exercises. 3.2.2.5 Purchase of Mobile and Portable Equipment The GPD grant programs allow for equipment purchases under the 21 allowable equipment categories on the Allowable Equipment List (AEL), or that are otherwise approved by GPD. The AEL is available on-line at https://www.rkb.us/mel.cfm?subtypeid=549. The category of mobile and portable equipment is defined as devices that do not require any fixed installation and may be transported from site to site, such as hand-held radios, PPE, satellite phones, dive equipment, boats, response vehicles, identification cards, and other similar devices that do not require installation. Under the AEL, FEMA currently allows for the purchase of some types of high frequency sonar equipment used for detection. These include, but may not be limited to: * Imaging sonar - a high-frequency sonar that produces video-like imagery using a narrow field of view. * Scanning sonar - a smaller sonar system that produces a panoramic view of the surrounding area. * Side Scan Sonar - produces strip-like images from both sides of the device. This type of sonar emits a high frequency sound to detect a target up to 1,500 meters away. * Three-dimensional (3-D) sonar - produces a 3-D imagery of objects using an array receiver. Generally the type of sonar equipment in the AEL operates between above the 150 kilohertz (kHz) frequency with pings of 15 to 20 hertz (Hz). 3.2.2.6 Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities GPD grant funds can be used to improve security and other essential services at existing facilities through renovation, retrofit or expansion of existing structures. Projects of this type involve activities that are relatively minor alterations to the interior or exterior of existing facilities and may or may not require ground disturbance. This project type includes equipment that must be installed fixed at, in, or on a facility (hereinafter referred to as "fixed equipment"). Fixed equipment includes, but is not limited to, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, bollards, lighting, fencing, identification card readers, tire puncture treadles, loud speakers, warning sirens, x-ray machines, and motion detection equipment. The installation of any fixed equipment on communication towers is not included in this category. Facilities that may be eligible for security enhancements under the GPD grant programs include: security guard buildings, emergency operation centers (EOCs), waterside facilities (e.g., dock, dockhouse, pier, waterside law enforcement facility), court houses, police and fire stations, schools, places of worship, medical facilities, stadiums, transportation infrastructure (e.g. bus and railway stations, bridges, tunnels, etc.), and tourist sites (e.g. monuments, museums, historic sites). Examples of GPD-funded actions include: * Installing fixed equipment (see examples above) * Installing, replacing or upgrading blast-proof doors or windows * Installing, replacing or upgrading interior gates or barriers * Installing, replacing or upgrading plumbing, electrical lines or other utilities * Enlarging an existing facility (e.g. adding an annex, story, etc.) Activities analyzed under this alternative may or may not involve ground disturbance. For purposes of this PEA ground disturbance means any work or activity that results in a disturbance of the earth, including excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, backfilling, blasting, topsoil stripping, land leveling, peat removing, quarrying, clearing and grating. Ground disturbance would typically be associated with installation of utilities, enlarging a facility, and installation of fence and light posts. Ground disturbance actions under this project type would be less than one (1) acre. 3.2.2.7 New Construction, including Replacement, of Facilities Certain GPD grant programs allow for the construction of various structures to house and enable the missions of various first responder, public safety, and security entities. These facilities and structures play a significant role in enhancing preparedness and response capability for these organizations. New facilities that may be built using GPD grant funds include: security guard buildings, EOCs, fire stations, and docks/piers. For purposes of this PEA, new construction is defined as preparation of previously disturbed or undisturbed land and the building or assembly of new buildings (including pre-fabricated buildings), structures, facilities, infrastructure and other real property on that land. The types of new construction covered under this project type can occur at previously undisturbed, disturbed, or developed sites. Activities associated with the construction of a new facility may include: * Demolition of an existing structure * Site clearing and grubbing * Site grading * Excavation * Staging areas for equipment, building materials, fill, etc. * Delivery, installation, and connection of utilities * Installing supporting security measures * Use of construction equipment, such as backhoes, front-end loaders, compactors, trenchers, augers, trucks (concrete, delivery, dump), and air compressors * Traffic to and from the project site, including worker vehicles and delivery vehicles * Demolishing an existing facility and replacing it with a new facility on the same site All associated needs for a new facility, including utility connections, fencing, lighting, access roads, equipment staging areas, parking and security measures, etc., are also covered under the analysis of this project type, and are considered to contribute to the entire project footprint. In order to accurately assess the environmental impacts of this project type, all features of the proposed development must be analyzed. These activities would typically be less than five (5) acres. Section Four Affected Environment This section provides a description of the various areas of concern, from an environmental and historic preservation perspective, that could potentially be impacted by projects implemented using GPD grant funding. It serves as a baseline from which to identify and evaluate potential impacts. The potential impacts of GPD-funded projects on the quality of the human environment are discussed in Section Five, Environmental Consequences. The areas of concern covered in this section are: land use; geology, soils and seismicity; water resources; wetlands; floodplains; biological resources; human health and safety; low-income and minority populations; historic properties; infrastructure; air quality; noise; visual quality; and climate change. 4.1 Land Use Land use is the way in which, and the purposes for which, people utilize the land and its resources. Land use planning varies depending on land ownership and jurisdictional boundaries. Land use within and in the immediate vicinity of urban areas is generally guided by comprehensive plans that specify the allowable types and locations of present and future land use. In most cases, that comprehensive plan is developed through a public participation process and approved by publicly-elected officials to capture local values and attitudes toward planning and future development. Zoning ordinances and regulations vary throughout the U.S. and are primarily set at the regional, city, county, or local level. Some GPD projects may occur on Federally-managed land, such as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land. Land use planning in these Federally-managed lands do not undergo the same type of planning process as land under the ownership of private and municipal entities. Most Federal land planning activities are under the discretion of the managing agency, which has its own criteria for use, development procedures, and public involvement. These activities are often exempt from local zoning ordinances and regulations. The proposed project sites are likely to vary greatly in their land use characteristics given that GPD-funded activities may occur at various locations throughout the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Caribbean and Pacific Islands. To assess the affected environment related to zoning and land use, it may be necessary to survey the proposed project area. This site-specific analysis is beyond the scope of this PEA, therefore potential impacts will be discussed on a programmatic level. The following land designations are discussed below: coastal zones, coastal barriers, and important farmlands. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.) is administered by the Department of Commerce's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It applies to all coastal States and to all states that border the Great Lakes. The CZMA was established to help prevent any additional loss of living marine resources, wildlife, and nutrient-enriched areas; alterations in ecological systems; and decreases in undeveloped areas available for public use. The CZMA gives states the authority to determine whether activities of governmental agencies are consistent with Federally-approved coastal zone management programs. Each state coastal zone management program must include provisions protecting coastal natural resources, fish, and wildlife; managing development along coastal shorelines; providing public access to the coast for recreational purposes; and incorporating public and local coordination for decision-making in coastal areas. This voluntary Federal-State partnership addresses coastal development, water quality, shoreline erosion, public access, protection of natural resources, energy facility siting, and coastal hazards. The Federal Consistency provision, contained in Section 307 of the CZMA, allows affected states to review Federal activities to ensure that they are consistent with the state's coastal zone management program. This provision also applies to non-Federal programs and activities that use Federal funding and that require Federal authorization. Any activities that may have an effect on any land or water use or on any natural resources in the coastal zone must conform to the enforceable policies of the approved state coastal zone management program. NOAA's regulations in 15 CFR 930 provide the procedures for arriving or obtaining a consistency determination. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 (16 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), was enacted to protect sensitive and vulnerable barrier islands found along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coastlines. The CBRA established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), which is composed of undeveloped coastal barrier islands, including those in the Great Lakes. With limited exceptions, areas contained within a CBRS are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal funds that might support or promote coastal development, thereby discouraging development in coastal areas. Prime and unique farmlands and farmlands of state and local importance are protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.). Prime farmland is characterized as land with the best physical and chemical characteristics for the production of food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops. Prime farmland is either used for food or fiber crops or is available for those crops; it is not urban, built-up land, or water areas. Unique farmland is defined as land that is used for the production of certain high-value crops, such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, and fruits. The FPPA requires Federal agencies to examine the potentially adverse effects to these resources before approving any action that would irreversibly convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. This examination is done in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), who uses a land evaluation and site assessment system to complete a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (Form AD-1006). Federal regulations at 7 CFR 658 describe the process for this analysis. 4.2 Geology, Soils and Seismicity 4.2.1 Geology and Soils The geology of an area refers specifically to the surface and near-surface materials of the earth and to how those materials were formed. These resources are typically described in terms of regional or local geology, including mineral resources, earth materials, soil resources, and topography. Descriptions of these resource areas include bedrock or sediment type and structure, unique geologic features, depositional or erosional environment, and age or history. Mineral resources include usable geological materials that have some economic or academic value. Soil is the unconsolidated loose covering of broken rock particles and decaying organic matter overlying the bedrock or parent material. Soils are typically described by their complex type, slope, and physical characteristics. Topography consists of the geomorphic characteristics of the land or sea floor surface, including the change in vertical elevation of the earth's surface across a given area, the relationship with adjacent land features, and geographic location (USCG 2006). Soil characteristics within an area depend on the parent material located in that area. Soil characteristics vary across the U.S. and its territories. Areas with similar soils are grouped and labeled as soil series because of their similar origins and chemical and physical properties, which cause the soils to perform similarly for land use purposes. The geological makeup of the United States is broken down into physiographic divisions, as established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Physiographic divisions are broad-scale regions established by common terrain texture, rock type, and geologic structure and history. Geologic, topographic, and soil characteristics may impose limitations on potential uses for a particular site. Areas characterized by susceptibility to flooding, seismic or volcanic activity, tsunamis, landslides, mudslides, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes may entirely preclude the implementation of a proposed project at a particular location, or may require the use of certain engineering technologies or require consultation with State or Federal agencies before the proposed project may proceed. 4.2.2 Seismicity Executive Order 12699 - Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction establishes responsibilities regarding the seismic-related safety of buildings owned, leased or funded by Federal agencies. Under this EO, each Federal agency responsible for the design and construction of a Federal or federally-funded building must ensure that the building is designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate seismic design and construction standards. These standards are promulgated through the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) and are subsequently incorporated into model building codes (such as the 2006 International Building Code/International Residential Code) that are used as the basis for local building codes in most municipalities. NEHRP periodically publishes new standards; the latest NEHRP standards were published in 2000 (NEHRP 2000). The EO applies to all building projects for which detailed plans and specifications were initiated subsequent to its issuance. A building means any structure, fully or partially enclosed, used or intended for sheltering persons or property. The purposes of these requirements are to: * Reduce the risks to persons who would be affected by the failure during an earthquake of buildings owned by the Federal government, leased for Federal uses, or purchased or constructed with Federal assistance; * Improve the capability of essential Federal buildings to function during and after an earthquake; * Reduce earthquake-related losses to public buildings in a cost-effective manner. 4.3 Water Resources Water resources refer to the occurrence, availability and physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of surface water and groundwater, including hydrologic properties and water quality for aquatic plant and animal communities and public water supplies. Water bodies include aquifers, springs, streams, river, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and near shore and offshore marine waters. Water quality encompasses the level of pollutants that affect the suitability of water for a given use. Water use classifications generally include public water supply, recreation, propagation of fish and other aquatic life, agricultural use, and industrial use. Water resources (water quality and quantity) are protected and regulated by many Federal statutes and EOs, as well as State and local regulations and directives. Surface, ground, and coastal waters are protected from pollution originating from point sources such as sewage treatment plant discharge and industrial discharges, and from non-point sources such as runoff from urban paved areas, mines, and livestock operations. Statutes, laws, and EOs governing water resources are listed below. Wetlands and floodplains will be described separately in the following sections. * Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (better known as Clean Water Act (CWA)) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.): This Act regulates water quality of all discharges into "waters of the United States." The CWA also establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under Section 402, permits for dredged or fill material under Section 404, and state water quality certification requirements under Section 401. The NPDES Permit Program regulates wastewater discharges from point sources. A NPDES Stormwater General Construction Permit is required before construction modification activities commence at a site where more than 1 acre of land will be disturbed. Construction activity that includes "routine maintenance to maintain original lie and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility" is specifically excluded. * Section 404 of the CWA: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for regulating the disposal of dredged and fill materials under Section 404 of the CWA. Certain waters of the United States are considered "special aquatic sites" under the CWA because they are generally recognized as having particular ecological value. Such sites include sanctuaries and refuges, mudflats, wetlands, vegetated shallow, eelgrass beds, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes. Special aquatic sites are defined in the CWA and may be afforded additional consideration in the USACE permit process for a project. Section 404 permits are discussed in more detail under wetlands in Section 4.5 of this PEA. 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. * Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq.): The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates primary drinking water supplies under the SDWA. These regulations were established to protect public health and prescribe requirements for State programs to implement the public water supply supervisor program and underground injection control program under the authority of SDWA. * Sole Source Aquifers (42 U.S.C. § 300h-3(e)): The SDWA authorizes USEPA to designate aquifers that are the sole or principal source of drinking water for an area. To meet the criteria for designation, a sole-source aquifer must supply at least 50 percent of the drinking water to persons living over the aquifer and no feasible alternate source of drinking water is available. Once an aquifer is designated, USEPA can review proposed projects that are to receive Federal funds and that have the potential to contaminate the aquifer. Federal agencies cannot provide financial assistance to a project for which the USEPA finds that it would create a significant hazard to public health by contaminating a designated SSA. * Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.): This Act requires authorization from the USACE for construction activities in or near any navigable water of the United States. * Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968 (16 U.S.C. § 1271 et seq.): This Act preserves selected rivers in a free-flowing condition and protects their local environments. 4.4 Floodplains Floodplains are the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including, at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Floodplains perform a variety of essential functions including floodwater conveyance and storage, groundwater recharge, wave attenuation, streambank erosion, reduction in sedimentation rates, water quality maintenance, and support of highly productive ecosystems. Most floodplains are adjacent to streams, lakes, or oceans. Beaches and small river valleys are usually easily recognizable as floodplains, but less obvious floodplains occur in dry washes and on alluvial fans in arid parts of the western United States, around prairie potholes, in areas subject to high groundwater levels, and in low lying areas where water may accumulate. Sheet flooding and ponding occur in areas where there is no clearly defined channel and the path of flooding is unpredictable. FEMA is charged with the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) as amended. The NFIA creates the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), makes flood insurance available for structures within communities participating in the NFIP, and requires the acquisition of flood insurance for structures in special flood hazard areas as a pre-condition of receiving Federal assistance. As part of its implementation of the NFIP FEMA identifies special flood hazard areas in Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and requires communities to adopt local floodplain ordinances that meet, at a minimum, FEMA's floodplain management criteria in 44 CFR 60 et seq. Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management was issued in 1977 to eliminate the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative for locating a project outside of the floodplain. EO 11988 applies to federally-funded projects and directs agencies to consider alternatives to siting projects within a floodplain. FEMA's regulations in 44 CFR Part 9 implement EO 11988 for the agency. These regulations require FEMA to engage in an 8-step decisionmaking process before undertaking an action within the floodplain or that would be affected by the floodplain. These steps involve: (1) determination that the action is in the floodplain, would affect the 100-year floodplain, or would indirectly support development in the floodplain; (2) early public notice; (3) identification and evaluation of alternatives to locating in the floodplain; (4) identification of the impacts of the proposed action; (5) selection of minimization, restoration and preservation measures; (6) reevaluation of alternatives; (7) publication of findings and public explanation; and (8) implementation of the action. For critical actions such as EOCs, hazardous waste facilities, hospitals, utility plants, and certain fire stations (i.e. those that are the only station providing service to a community), FEMA must identify practicable alternatives outside the 500-year floodplain. If no practicable alternatives exist to constructing a facility and/or supporting features, outside the floodplain, then FEMA must minimize potential harm to or from the floodplain. FEMA's procedures contain particular restrictions and minimization requirements for actions that will be located in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA, typically depicted as V-zones in FEMA's FIRMs) or in the regulatory floodway. 4.5 Wetlands Wetlands are areas which are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support, or that under normal hydrological conditions does or would support, a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life typically adapted for these soil conditions. Examples of wetlands include swamps, marshes, estuaries, bogs, beaches, wet meadows, sloughs, mud flats, among others. Wetlands have important ecological functions and are biologically diverse. They assimilate nutrients in surrounding surface waters, remove suspended solids and pollutants from stormwater, and protect shorelines from wind and wave action and storm-generated forces. GPD-funded actions that would impact wetlands would require review under several regulatory programs. These programs are listed below. * Section 404 of the CWA: Formal legal protection of jurisdictional wetlands is promulgated through Section 404 of the CWA. A dredge and fill permit for activities in waters of the United States including wetlands from the USACE is required if an action has the potential to adversely affect jurisdictional wetlands. There are several Nationwide Permits (NWP) for activities in waters of the United States that may cover specific aspects of the development of the proposed activities. For example, NWP 3 (Maintenance) may apply to activities related to the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of an existing structure; NWP 12 (Utility Line Activities) or NWP 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) may apply to the construction of utility lines and access roads for new facilities; NWP 18 (Minor Discharges) or NWP 19 (Minor Dredging) may apply to many sites where water impacts are minimal; NWP 28 (Modifications of Existing Marinas) may apply to activities near tidal waters; and NWP 39 (Commercial and Institutional Developments) may apply to actions involving the expansion or construction of security facilities. The NWP program has numerous guidelines and conditions that must be met for an activity to qualify for a permit. NWPs are subject to review by the States under Section 401 of the CWA, as are all aspects of the USACE permitting program. Various USACE Districts also have Regional General Permits that function similarly to NWPs; however, Regional General Permits are typically more specific in the types of actions that they cover and typically necessitate more stringent conditions and reporting requirements. If none of the NWPs apply to the proposed activity and no applicable Regional General Permit exists, then the grantee or subgrantee must acquire an Individual Permit from the USACE. * Section 401 of the CWA: Each State has an opportunity to establish specific criteria for water quality protection under this section of this Act. These provisions must be satisfied prior to issuance of permits under Sections 402 and 404 of the CWA. * Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands: This EO, issued in 1977, requires that all federally funded, permitted, or sponsored projects affecting wetlands demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives, and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use. FEMA's implementation of EO 11990 is described in 44 CFR Part 9 and involves an 8-step decision-making process similar to that described for EO 11988. This process ensures that proposed activities are consistent with EO 11990 and is also used to evaluate the potential effects of an action on wetlands. GPD-funded projects affecting wetland areas may require site- specific evaluation and consultation to develop mitigation measures. 4.6 Biological Resources Biological resources include animals, plants, and their habitats. In general, biological resources can include native and introduced plants that comprise the various habitats, animals present in such habitats, and natural areas that help support these plant and wildlife populations. Protected or sensitive biological resources include plant and animal species listed as threatened or endangered by FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), or a State. 4.6.1 Vegetation Vegetation can be characterized as tundra, forest (coniferous and broadleaf/mixed), grasslands and savannas, and desert. The potential for an area to provide and be used as wildlife habitat is based on several factors, including topography, vegetative cover and type, water availability, aerial extent, connectedness, and interferences attributable to human activity. 4.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Aquatic Resources Terrestrial wildlife species distribution and abundance are heavily influenced by available habitat. Available habitat and vegetative communities vary significantly across the U.S. and its territories even within short distances. Site-specific information is needed to determine project-specific impacts on wildlife species. Therefore, the focus of the baseline discussion is on compliance with existing laws and EOs regarding terrestrial wildlife. In general, aquatic resources that could be affected by project activities are limited to water bodies located down gradient of a project site. Waterside structures also have potential to directly affect a water body through the placement of pilings, docks, etc. Both the distribution and abundance of aquatic species can be influenced by factors such as water quality (including temperature), land use practices within the watershed, and the presence of other aquatic species, especially non-native exotic species. Again, because potential project sites are located across the U.S. and its territories, providing baseline information for all aquatic ecosystems that could be located down gradient of project sites is beyond the scope of this PEA. Examples of laws and EOs governing terrestrial wildlife and aquatic species are listed below. * Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.): This Act prohibits any actions that may harm or jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat. This is discussed in greater detail below. * Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940 (16 U.S.C. § 668 et seq.): This Act prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald eagle and golden eagles with limited exceptions. * Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA ) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.):The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful for any individual to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementation regulations. It has been extended to include almost all birds that have the ability to seasonally relocate within various part of the U.S. A list of migratory birds can be found in 50 CFR Part 10.13 and at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/mbtandx.html. * Executive Order 12186 - Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds: EO 13186 directs Federal agencies whose activities have or are likely to have a measurable, negative effect on migratory bird populations to develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FWS that will promote the conservation of migratory birds. Activities subject to the E.O. 12186 may include implementation of agency programs. * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1934 (16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.): This Act was enacted to protect fish and wildlife when Federal actions result in the impoundment of a natural stream or body of water. States also have biological resource protection regulations and guidelines that must be considered in order to comply with the Act. * Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.): This Act prohibits the taking or importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products. * Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.): The Amended Act, also known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act, requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities or proposed activities authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). * EO 13089 - Coral Reef Protection: This EO tasks Federal agencies with identifying actions that may affect coral reef ecosystems and ensuring that actions that they authorize, fund, or conduct will not degrade the conditions of coral reef ecosystems. * EO 13112 - Invasive Species: EO 13112 was created to prevent the introduction of invasive species and to provide for their control. Under this EO Federal agencies can not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. * EO 13158 - Marine Protected Areas: This EO was created to help protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment. It requires Federal agencies whose actions affect the resources protected by MPA's to avoid harm to these resources. The regulatory environment is an important consideration in reviewing the potential adverse impacts of activities proposed for GPD funding. The applicability of these requirements changes based on site-specific circumstances; project scope; Federal, State, and local government programs; level of Federal involvement; proximity of the biological resource(s) to a proposed project area; and land ownership. Developing an accurate portrayal of the regulatory environment affecting each proposed action is therefore essential in evaluating requirements for biological resource protection. Site-specific evaluation and a full understanding of the Federal, State, and local requirements are necessary. 4.6.3 Listed Species, Critical Habitat and Special-Status Species Activities by humans, such as over-harvesting, spreading of invasive exotic species, uncontrolled development resulting in the destruction of habitat, and the release of contaminants into the air, water, and soil, have resulted in significant reductions in the abundance and distribution of native species with numerous species nearing extinction or becoming extinct. Regulatory programs, both Federal and State, have been enacted in an attempt to prevent extinction of threatened and endangered species. Threatened and endangered species are broadly distributed throughout the U.S. and its territories. There are over 1,300 federally listed threatened and endangered species. Identifying and discussing each, as well as their habitat requirements, is beyond the scope of this PEA. The ESA requires Federal agencies to conserve those plants and animal species that have been listed as endangered and threatened species by the FWS or NMFS and critical habitats designated by these agencies. It defines an endangered species as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant area of its range and a threatened species as any species likely to become endangered in the near future. It also defines critical habitat as those geographical areas that contain physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Under Section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies, in consultation with FWS or NMFS, must insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species (i.e., a listed species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. FWS and NMFS are responsible for compiling the lists of threatened and endangered species. If a Proposed Action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or critical habitat, the Federal agency must prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) and initiate a formal consultation with FWS or NMFS. After reviewing the BA, FWS or NMFS prepares a Biological Opinion stating whether the Proposed Action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or cause the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If this is the case, the Biological Opinion will provide the Federal agency with Reasonable Prudent Alternatives that, if adopted, would avoid a jeopardy or adverse modification determination. The purpose of the consultation process is to ensure avoidance and minimization of potential adverse impacts on a listed species or critical habitats. Formal consultation is not required if the Federal agency determines that the action would have no effect on endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat. Formal consultation is also not needed if the Federal agencies agree that the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect listed species. In addition, the ESA prohibits all persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including Federal agencies, from, among other things, "taking" endangered or threatened species. The "taking" prohibition includes any harm or harassment and applies in the United States and on the high seas. On July 9, 2007 the FWS delisted the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the list of endangered and threatened species under the ESA. The listing of the eagle under the ESA and the banning of DDT and other harmful organochlorine chemicals resulted in increases in the breeding population of the species throughout the contiguous 48 States. FWS has developed a post-delisting monitoring plan. Although the bald eagle has been delisted due to their recovery, the protections afforded to the species from the BGEPA remain in place. The FWS has developed the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, incorporated by reference in this PEA, to avoid disturbance of bald eagle nests and the taking of species individuals. Other species are identified by FWS or NMFS as being candidate species or species of concern. These are referred in this document generically as special-status species. In addition to the Federal level, many States have designated special status species and provide some level of legal protection for these species. The special status species frequently overlap with those listed under the Federal ESA. However, species lists developed by the States frequently are more inclusive. 4.7 Human Health and Safety Hazardous substances are defined as any solid, liquid, contained gaseous or semisolid waste, or any combination of wastes that pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. Improper management and disposal of hazardous substances can lead to contamination of groundwater and surface water, including drinking water supplies, and soils. The primary Federal laws for the management and disposal of hazardous substances are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 (33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.). RCRA establishes national goals to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. RCRA outlines duties and responsibilities for hazardous waste generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers of hazardous waste. RCRA requires the regulation of underground storage tanks (UST), imposing structural integrity and management practice requirements. Waste management regulations by EPA are codified at 40 CFR Parts 239-282; regulations for management of hazardous waste begin at 40 CFR Part 260. Nearly all developed areas in the continental U.S. have solid waste management services or programs, with municipal solid waste generally regulated and managed at the State and community level. States have enacted laws and promulgated regulations that are at least as stringent as the Federal regulations. In addition, States have the authority to carry out many of the functions of RCRA through their own hazardous waste programs (and State laws), if such programs have been approved (authorized) by EPA. Evaluations of hazardous substances and wastes must consider whether any hazardous material will be generated by the proposed activity and whether a hazardous material already exists at the site or in the general vicinity of the site. Existing hazardous materials and waste concerns could impact future use of a site. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.) establishes requirements for Federal, State, and local governments, Indian Tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and "community right-to-know" reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. States and communities, working with facilities, can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. Under EPCRA, local governments are required to prepare chemical emergency response plans, and to review plans at least annually. State governments are required to oversee and coordinate local planning efforts. Facilities that maintain Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHSs) on site in quantities greater than corresponding Threshold Planning Quantities must cooperate in emergency plan preparation. Additionally, facilities must immediately report accidental releases of EHS chemicals and "hazardous substances" in quantities greater than corresponding Reportable Quantities defined in CERCLA to State and local officials. This information must be made available to the public. Facilities manufacturing, processing, or storing designated hazardous chemicals must make Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) describing the properties and health effects of these chemicals available to State and local officials and local fire departments. Facilities must also report, to State and local officials and local fire departments, inventories of all onsite chemicals for which MSDSs exist. This information must be made available to the public. Facilities must complete and submit a Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Form annually for each of the more than 600 Toxic Release Inventory chemicals that are manufactured or otherwise used above the applicable threshold quantities. The Small Business Liability Relief and Revitalization Act (the Brownfield Amendments) clarified CERCLA liability provisions for potential property owners. If the potential property owners meet the specific provisions of the act, including an adequate inquiry on past uses of the property, the landowner will be able to assert the innocent landowner defense, contiguous property exemption, and bona fide prospective purchaser exemption to CERCLA liability. The USEPA has published the final "all appropriate inquiries" rule (40 C.F.R. 312.10) that establishes the criteria for conducting Environmental Site Assessments on properties considered for acquisition. Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act of 2006 established an interim program requiring chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop facility security plans and required DHS to issue regulations for this program. In 2007 DHS issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS) interim final rule at 6 CFR Part 27. The purpose of this rule is to determine where chemicals of interest (COI) exist and whether additional security measures are required for facilities that store and manage these chemicals. In this rule, DHS sets forth the list of COI and their screening threshold quantities (STQs), which would trigger requirements under CFATS. Any facility or institution that possesses COI in excess of their listed thresholds was required to submit a detailed survey to DHS, which in turn classified the facilities into one of four risk-based tiers, ranging from the highest risk facilities in Tier 1 to lowest facilities in Tier 4. DHS classified 7,002 facilities into these tiers based on the information submitted in the surveys. These facilities were required to submit Security Vulnerability Assessments and Site Security Plans. DHS also issued Draft Risk- Based Performance Standards Guidance associated with the CFATS regulations. 73 Fed. Reg. 63,719 (Oct. 27, 2008). These include standards for areas such as perimeter security, access control, personnel surety, and cyber security. 4.8 Minority and Low Income Populations Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations requires Federal agencies to identify and correct its programs, policies, and activities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. The EO also tasks Federal agencies with ensuring that public notifications regarding environmental issues are concise, understandable, and readily accessible. The general purposes of EO 12898 are as follows: * To focus the attention of Federal agencies on human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice; * To foster nondiscrimination in Federal programs that substantially affect human health or the environment; * To give minority communities and low-income communities greater opportunities for public participation in, and access to, public information on matters relating to human health and the environment. Potential environmental justice impacts are evaluated by analyzing the socioeconomic makeup of the community where a project is proposed to be located. Some general category descriptions help define and weigh Federal action impacts on socioeconomic resources and environmental justice include economic characteristics such as low-income areas, housing characteristics such as medium- to high-density residential areas and rural areas, and demographic characteristics such as areas with a high percentage of minorities. Low-income or poverty areas are defined using the statistical poverty threshold from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), which is based on income and family size. The USCB defines a poverty area as a census tract in which 20 percent or more of its residents are below the poverty threshold and an extreme poverty area as one in which 40 percent or more are below the poverty level. The 2007 poverty threshold for a family of four with two children under the age of 18 was $21,027 (USCB 2008). Minority populations include persons who identify themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaskan Native, black (not of Hispanic origin), or Hispanic. (CEQ 1997). A minority population exists where the percentage of minorities in an affected area either exceeds 50 percent or is meaningfully greater than in the general population. In addition, a minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and the minority percentage, when calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above thresholds. If a proposed project will cause disproportionate high and adverse impacts on low-income or minority populations, mitigation measures will be required. 4.9 Historic Properties Historic properties are prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), maintained by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). More than 80,000 properties are listed in the NRHP. Almost every county in the U.S. has at least one place listed in the NRHP. Properties may be eligible for listing in the NRHP if they possess significance at the national, tribal, state or territory, or local level in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. In order for a property to be considered historic, it must meet basic criteria and retain the historic integrity of those features necessary to convey their significance. To convey integrity, historic properties will always possess several, and usually most, of the following seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The passage of time may require re-evaluation of historic properties to reaffirm the original National Register status. There are multiple Federal regulations that require consideration of effects to historic properties, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C § 470 et seq.), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 (42 U.S.C. § 1992 et seq.), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470aa et seq.). Section 106 of NHPA directs the Federal Government to consider the effects of its undertakings on historic properties through a four-step decision-making and compliance process. It is noteworthy that the law does not mandate preservation of historic properties; rather, it mandates that Federal agencies follow the decision-making process. The four steps of the Section 106 compliance process are as follows: 1. Initiate the Section 106 Process. FEMA determines whether an undertaking exists, engages the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), identifies potential consulting parties, and develops an appropriate plan for public involvement in consultation with the SHPO/THPO. 2. Identify historic properties. FEMA, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, determines the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking and reviews existing information on historic properties within the APE. The APE is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is determined by the scope of the project, the characteristics of the project area (e.g. topography, building density, land use), and the type of historic property being considered, and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. Also, the APE for historic properties may be different from the area studied for other resource types under NEPA. Once the APE is established, FEMA gathers information from the SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, consulting parties, and other individuals or organizations likely to have knowledge of historic properties in the area, and identifies issues relating to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. This step also involves FEMA making a determination of whether a property is eligible for listing on the NRHP in consultation with the SHPO/THPO. 3. Assess adverse effects of undertaking on historic properties. If FEMA determines that no historic properties are affected by the undertaking or that there will be no adverse effect to historic properties, FEMA must seek the concurrence of the SHPO/THPO and notify other consulting parties. If FEMA and the SHPO/THPO concur, the compliance process ends at this step. However, if FEMA determines that the undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, the agency must notify the SHPO/THPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and any other consulting parties through a letter and supporting documentation. Federal agencies must consider possible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on historic properties. Direct effects include physical impacts, while indirect effects may include visual, atmospheric, and audible impacts on historic properties. 4. Resolve adverse effects to historic properties. FEMA must resolve adverse effects by seeking ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the undertaking's adverse effect through consultation with the SHPO/THPO, other identified consulting parties, including the grantee and subgrantee, and ACHP, if participating. If avoiding or minimizing the adverse effect through re-design or other alternative means is not possible, FEMA, the SHPO/THPO, the grantee and subgrantee, and other consulting parties may enter into a Memorandum of Agreement that outlines appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect(s) to historic properties. In cases where FEMA and the other consulting parties fail to agree on appropriate measures to treat the adverse effect(s), FEMA or the other consulting parties may decide to terminate consultation, in which case the ACHP issues comments. FEMA must take these comments into consideration before notifying ACHP of its final decision, after which the project may proceed. Because of the broad scope and location of the proposed projects in this PEA, the presence of historic properties within the APE of some of the proposed projects is highly likely. Once an APE is established for a particular undertaking, background research with the SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes, local libraries, government offices, historical societies, and others as necessary, can provide information on previously-identified historic properties. Research may also provide an understanding of the historic context for a project area, which will further assist in identifying resources and evaluating whether they may meet one or more of the NRHP criteria. Fieldwork could also be required to identify historic properties. A higher standard is applicable to Federal agencies when their actions may affect historic properties that are designated as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs). In accordance with Section 110 of NHPA, Federal agencies must, to the maximum extent possible, minimize harm to NHLs directly and adversely affected by their undertakings prior to their approval. 16 U.S.C. § 470h-2(f). In addition Federal agencies must notify and formally invite the Secretary of Interior to the consultation process, and invite the ACHP to participate in the consultation process to resolve adverse effects. There are fewer than 2,500 NHLs but they include Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources that may be the subject of GPD projects. FEMA has entered into State-specific Programmatic Agreements (PAs) with various SHPOs and State Emergency Management Agencies. These State-specific PAs provide streamlined procedures for FEMA undertakings related to its disaster response and recovery and hazard mitigation activities, including programmatic allowances that exclude certain FEMA undertakings from the Section 106 consultation process. As new State-specific PAs are negotiated or previously-executed PAs are revised, the GPD undertakings covered under this PEA may be included. FEMA will also continue to identify opportunities to streamline review of GPD undertakings in States without Section 106 PAs. In this PEA, FEMA divides historic properties into two broad categories: archaeology and other historic properties. FEMA will always conduct the Section 106 review process described above to properly identify all historic properties, determine the effect of undertakings on identified historic properties, and resolve adverse effects of its undertakings to historic properties. It is FEMA's practice to complete this process before completing the NEPA determination to ensure that impacts to historic properties have been taken into account in the NEPA process. 4.10 Infrastructure Infrastructure consists of the systems and physical structures that enable a population in a specified area to function. Infrastructure by definition includes a broad array of facilities (e.g., utility systems, streets, highways, railroads, airports, ports, bridges, buildings and structures, and other man-made facilities). Individuals, businesses, governmental entities, and virtually all relationships between these groups depend upon this infrastructure for their most basic needs, as well as for critical and advanced needs (e.g., emergency response and health care). Section 5195c(e) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code defines critical infrastructure (CI) as the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the US that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or a combination of these. Section 101(10) of Title 6 of the U.S. Code defines key resources as publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government. Infrastructure is entirely man-made, with a high correlation between the type and extent of infrastructure and the degree to which an area is characterized as "developed." An essential component of economic growth to an area is the availability of infrastructure and its capacity to support growth. Infrastructure components typically include utilities (electricity and communications), solid waste, and the transportation network. Transportation Potential sites addressed by this PEA can be located in any type of area: urban, suburban, rural, or remote. The transportation facilities that serve these different types of locations can vary widely. Urban areas are generally characterized by a complex and extensive system of roads, including major interstate freeways and surface streets. Urban roads typically support high levels of traffic, which often result in roadway segment and intersection congestion. Rural environments can be characterized by fewer roads and roads that are frequently graveled instead of paved. Generally, traffic levels on rural roads are relatively low (i.e., little or no congestion). Remote areas may have no maintained roadways, but instead, only hiking or all-terrain vehicle trails. Solid Waste Solid waste, more commonly known as trash or garbage, consists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. Projects that have the potential to generate large amounts of solid waste may impact a community's ability to properly manage and dispose of waste. Projects proposed to take place in communities with insufficient solid waste management capacity may need to create a plan to address this issue. 4.11 Air Quality The EPA has established primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.). The CAA not only established the NAAQS, but also set emission limits for certain air pollutants from specific sources, set new source performance standards based on best demonstrated technologies, and established national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants. The EPA classifies the air quality within an air quality control region (AQCR) according to whether the region meets or exceeds Federal primary and secondary NAAQS. Primary standards define levels of air quality necessary to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary standards define levels of air quality necessary to protect public welfare (i.e., soils, vegetation, and wildlife) from any known or anticipated adverse impacts of a pollutant. Federal NAAQS are currently established for the following seven pollutants (known as "criteria pollutants"): carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). Table 4-1 shows the NAAQS. Table 4-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Pollutant Primary Standards Secondary Standards Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time Carbon Monoxide (CO) 9 ppm (10 milligrams/ m3 [mg/m3]) 8 hours None 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 1 hour Lead (Pb) 0.15 µg/m3 Rolling 3-month average Same as primary 1.5 µg/m3 Quarterly average Same as primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Annual (arithmetic mean) Same as primary Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 µg/m3 24 hours Same as primary Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15.0 µg/m3 Annual (arithmetic mean) Same as primary 35 µg/m3 24 hours Same as primary Ozone (O3) 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8 hours Same as primary 0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8 hours Same as primary 0.12 ppm 1 hour (applies only in limited areas) Same as primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.03 ppm Annual (arithmetic mean) 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) 3-hours 0.14 ppm 24-hours Source: EPA 2008a Air quality is affected by both stationary sources (e.g., urban and industrial developments) and mobile sources (e.g., automobiles and trains). In general, urban environments are characterized by elevated levels of criteria pollutants, which can potentially reach unhealthy levels. Rural environments, in contrast, are typically characterized by good air quality for most criteria pollutants due to the lack of pollution- emitting sources. However, due to the migratory nature of air pollutants, emissions from urban areas can have a negative impact on the air quality of a rural area. Land use practices in rural areas can affect air quality when wind erosion raises dust from tilled fields, and when agricultural burning and fires caused by vegetation management practices adversely affect air quality with smoke and wind-blown ashes. An AQCR or portion of an AQCR may be classified as attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified for each of the seven criteria pollutants. Attainment describes a condition in which one or more of the seven NAAQS are being met in an area. The area is considered to be attainment only for those criteria pollutants for which the NAAQS are being met. Non- attainment describes a condition in which one or more of the seven NAAQS are not being met in an area. Unclassified indicates that air quality in the area has not been classified and is therefore treated as attainment. Areas that have been recently re-designated from non-attainment to attainment are called maintenance areas (in reference to how the area will maintain attainment). An area may have all four classifications for different criteria pollutants. Air emission regulations are more stringent in non-attainment areas and vary not only from AQCR to AQCR, but also within an AQCR. States with air quality that does not achieve the NAAQS are required to develop and maintain State Implementation Plans (SIPs). In addition, the USEPA may develop a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) and Tribes may develop their own Tribal Implementation Plans (TIP). These plans constitute a federally enforceable definition of the applicable approach (or plan) and schedule for the attainment of the NAAQS. The General Conformity Rule (GCR), established under Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)) requires Federal agencies to work with State, Territory, Tribal, and local governments in a nonattainment or maintenance area to ensure that Federal actions conform to the initiatives established in the applicable SIP, FIP, or TIP. Before a Federal action is taken, it must be evaluated for conformity with the applicable implementation plan. The CAA requires that proponents of proposed new and modified major stationary sources demonstrate that emissions from the new or modified major source will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in any AQCR. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(k)(1). Major stationary sources that are projected to emit 250 or more tons per year of a criteria pollutant and modifications that would result in significant emissions increase as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(40) in attainment areas require a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit from the USEPA. 4.12 Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal human activities or wildlife behavior, or may otherwise diminish environmental quality. Sound is most commonly measured in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale most similar to the range of sounds that the human ear can hear. The Day-Night Average sound Level (DNL) is an average measure of sound. The DNL descriptor is accepted by federal agencies as a standard for estimating sound impacts and establishing guidelines for compatible land uses. In a typical day, most people are exposed to sound levels of 50 to 55 dB or higher. Topographic features and structural barriers that absorb, reflect, or scatter sound waves can decrease or increase noise levels. (HUD 2009). In addition, atmospheric conditions, such as wind speed and direction, and weather, can also affect the perception of the sound. (HUD 2009). Animals use sounds for communication and navigation, to avoid danger, and to find food. The same noise factors that affect humans may also influence wildlife. In general, wildlife has a wider hearing range than humans, both on the low and high frequency ends of the noise spectrum. Noise studies, principally those on aircraft noise, have found varying results, ranging from no identifiable effects in some species, to noticeable behavioral and physiological effects in other species (e.g., birds) (EPA 1980). For this PEA FEMA will adopt the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration standards for noise abatement found in 23 CFR Part 772 - Table 1. These establish, for example, the need to consider noise abatement measures for actions that produce sound levels that 10 percent of the time exceed 70 dB in areas with sensitive receptors (e.g. as playgrounds, parks, schools, libraries, residences, and hospitals) and exceed 75 dB in developed lands. 4.13 Visual Quality Natural and man-made features give a particular setting or area its aesthetic qualities. These features define the landscape character of an area and form the overall impression that an observer receives of that area. Evaluating the aesthetic qualities of an area is a subjective process because the value an observer places on specific landscape features varies depending upon the values and attitudes of the observer. Regardless of the subjective nature of assessing visual aesthetics, landforms, water surfaces, vegetation, and man-made features can generally be considered characteristic of an area if they are inherent to the composition and function of the landscape. The aesthetic characteristics of a project area depend on whether the area is a remote, rural, or urban setting. In a remote or rural setting, the visual aesthetics tend to be dominated by naturally-occurring landforms and vegetation. Examples include natural landscapes, mountains, undulating land, valleys, cliffs, lakes, streams, beaches, and natural vegetation. Although naturally-occurring visual resources dominate rural areas, some signs of human activity are likely to be present and may also contribute to the visual aesthetics. Examples include farm houses, agricultural fields, fences, barns, silos, scenic highways, and lighthouses. Vegetation in rural areas is primarily crops grown in tilled fields, grassland, and lawns around farmhouses. Remote areas may have no visible man-made structures. The natural features present in rural/remote settings may also be present in an urban environment. However, unlike the remote or rural settings, man-made features are normally the dominant visual element in an urban setting. Examples of these features include houses, office buildings, warehouses, rail yards, utility plants, historic buildings, landmarks, parking areas, storage yards, billboards, and signage. Vegetation in an urban setting is primarily lawns, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Air pollution can substantially reduce visibility in wilderness areas and parks. The EPA issued the Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR 51.300 et. seq., to address the decrease in visibility in 156 of the Nation's National Parks and Wilderness areas (Class I Areas). The Regional Haze Rule encourages States and Federal land management agencies to work together to address regional haze in these areas. As a result of the rule States with Class I Areas have adopted or may adopt plans and regulations that restrict activities that contribute to regional haze. 4.14 Climate Change Climate change refers to long-term fluctuations in global surface temperatures, precipitation, ice cover, sea levels, cloud cover, ocean temperatures and currents, and other climatic conditions. Scientific research has shown that in the past century, Earth's surface temperature has risen by an average of about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (şF) or 0.74 degrees Centigrade (şC). (IPCC 2007). Sea levels have risen 6.7 inches (0.17 meter) in the past century and Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 percent per decade, with larger decreases of 7.4 percent in summer. (IPCC 2007). Impacts of climate change include increase in average surface temperatures, decrease in seasonal frozen ground, extreme temperatures, extreme weather events such as heavy precipitation events and intense and longer droughts, reduction in glaciers, ice caps and snow cover, and increase in cyclone activity. Most scientists agree that this climate change is largely a result of green house gases (GHG) emissions from human activities. (IPCC 2007). These GHG trap heat in the Earth's troposphere and reradiate it back to Earth causing warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the scientific body tasked by the United Nations to evaluate the risk of human-induced climate change - has asserted that, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." (IPCC 2007). Most GHGs, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor, and ozone occur by natural processes. However, human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels, production of agricultural commodities and the harvesting of trees can contribute to increased concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased approximately 35, 150, and 18 percent, respectively, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700 (IPCC 2007). The IPCC predicts that CO2 concentrations could rise to more than three times the pre-industrial level by 2100 (Meehl et al. 2007). The IPCC also predicts a increase of average global surface temperature of 2.0 to 11.5 şF (1.1 to 6.4 şC) over the next century, accompanied by a sea level rise of approximately 0.6 to 1.9 ft. (0.18 to 0.59 m). (IPCC 2007). Contributions to the increase of GHG in the atmosphere vary greatly from country to country, and depend heavily on the level of industrial and economic activity. The United States accounts for 19.6 percent of global CO2 emissions. (WRI 2008). GHG emissions for the U.S. in 2006 were estimated at 7,054 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) equivalent (EPA 2008b). CO2 is the primary GHG emitted in the U.S., represented close to 85 percent of all U.S. MMTCO2 equivalent emissions in 2006. (EPA 2008b). On April 24, 2009 the USEPA issued a proposed endangerment finding and proposed rule establishing that GHG endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. 74 Fed. Reg. 18886 (April 24, 2009). This proposed finding was issued with respect to six GHG: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The USEPA Administrator also proposed to find that the combined emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons from new vehicles and new motor vehicles are contributing to air pollution which is endangering public health and welfare under Section 202(a) of the CAA. On December 7, 2009 the USEPA signed the endangerment finding providing the USEPA with authority to regulate the emission of these pollutants. 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009). The USEPA has also adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule in 40 CFR Part 98 mandating the reporting of GHG from large sources and suppliers in the U.S. The rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHG, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG to submit annual reports to the USEPA. This rule became effective on December 29, 2009. The CEQ used this threshold of 25,000 metric tons or more per year as a threshold for determining when more detailed analysis is needed in NEPA analyses in the Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Feb. 2010). Section Five Environmental Consequences This Section provides a programmatic analysis of the impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. It describes the likely effects of implementing the programs and project types eligible under the various GPD grants and, to the extent possible, identifies programmatic mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to reduce or avoid the impacts of particular activities. In addition, this section identifies project activities that require site-specific evaluation and may trigger the need for the preparation of a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) or a Tiered Site-specific Environmental Assessment (SEA) to determine if the particular activities would have significant impacts on the quality of the human environment given their unique environmental context. Some of the proposed projects indentified in this PEA could be eligible for one or more FEMA CATEX. GPD programs and grant-funded projects were not the basis for FEMA's list of CATEXs and extraordinary circumstances at the time of their development in 1980 or the various revisions in 1981, 1982, 1987, 1994, 1996 and 2001. For this reason, the PEA includes a discussion of the applicability of existing FEMA CATEXs to GPD actions. Appendix B provides a cross-walk of FEMA's CATEXs and how they apply to GPD-funded activities. For GPD project types to which FEMA CATEXs apply and do not have the potential to trigger extraordinary circumstances, this PEA will serve as the only NEPA documentation required. For those GPD project types to which a FEMA CATEX applies, but which may trigger the need to evaluate the presence or resolution of extraordinary circumstances based on the unique environmental conditions present, FEMA will document the applicability of the CATEX and extraordinary circumstances through a REC on a case-by-case basis. If there are extraordinary circumstances present that cannot be resolved or project-specific mitigation required to avoid or reduce impacts, then FEMA will prepare an SEA and determine whether a FONSI can be issued. See Figure 1-1. It is FEMA's practice to review an action or project for its compliance with other environmental planning and historic preservation requirements such as ESA Section 7, NHPA Section 106, 44 CFR Part 9, and others before making the final NEPA determination. This ensures that the Agency integrates NEPA with other planning requirements and utilizes the established review and consultation processes to inform the determination of whether a CATEX applies, whether extraordinary circumstances have been resolved, whether a PEA is applicable, whether a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) could be reached, or the appropriate timing for the issuance of a record of decision for an EIS. Table 5-1 establishes the criteria for determining if a proposed action is covered under the FONSI for this PEA, if a Tiered SEA and 15-day public comment period are needed, or if an EIS is required because of the significance of the impacts associated with the proposed action. Table 5-1. Thresholds for Tiered SEA and EIS Determinations Area of Evaluation Covered by FONSI Tiered Site-specific EA required EIS Land Use Impacts to land use would not be measurable or would be measurable or perceptible, but would be limited to a relatively small change in land use that is still consistent with surrounding or planned land uses. And The proposed action and alternatives would be consistent with respective State Coastal Zone Management plans. And Project will not be in a CBRS unit. And Project scores less than 160 points on Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD-1006) Mitigation measures are needed to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Or Proposed action is more than five (5) acres. Or Coastal zone management agency determines the project to be inconsistent with enforceable policies of an approved plan and project is modified to bring it to consistency. Or Project scores more than 160 points on Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD-1006) The proposed action will significantly change the surrounding land uses in the short- and long-term. Or The proposed action and alternatives would not be consistent with the surrounding land use and the local land use agency requires a special land use permit or waiver. Or Coastal zone management agency determines the project to be inconsistent with enforceable policies of an approved plan and exemption is sought in the interest of National security. Or Project scores more than 160 points in FPPA form and no mitigation is provided. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity as a result of the proposed action or alternatives would not be detectable or detectable and steps are taken in order to minimize adverse impacts. Projects proposed in areas characterized by susceptibility to seismic, volcanic, tsunamis, landslide or mudslide activity, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes are mitigated. Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Impacts on geology, soils, and seismicity as a result of the proposed action or alternatives would be readily apparent and result in a change to the character of the resource over a relatively wide area. Or Projects proposed in areas characterized by susceptibility to seismic, volcanic, tsunamis, landslide or mudslide activity, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes are not mitigated. Water Resources Impacts (chemical, physical, or biological effects) resulting from the proposed action or alternatives would be either not detectable, or detectable, but at or below water quality standards or criteria. Alterations in water quality and hydrologic conditions relative to historical baseline may occur, however, only on a localized and short-term basis. Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Impacts (chemical, physical, or biological effects) resulting from the proposed action or alternatives would be detectable and would be frequently altered from the historical baseline or desired water quality conditions; and/or chemical, physical, or biological water quality standards or criteria would be locally, slightly and singularly, exceeded on either a short-term or prolonged basis. Floodplains Proposed action is not in the floodplain. Adverse effects to or from the 100-year floodplain for non-critical actions or adverse effects to or from the 500-year floodplain for critical actions are present. Adverse effects are minimized in accordance with FEMA's minimization standards in 44 CFR 9.11. Or Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Adverse effects to or from the 100-year floodplain for non-critical actions or adverse effects to or from the 500-year floodplain for critical actions are present. Adverse effects are not minimized in accordance with FEMA's minimization standards in 44 CFR 9.11. Wetlands Proposed action is not in wetlands. Adverse effects from the project to wetlands will occur but effects are minimized in accordance with FEMA's minimization standards in 44 CFR 9.11. Water quality and hydrologic changes resulting from such development would either be not detectable, or detectable, but at or below water quality standards or criteria. Alterations in water quality and hydrologic conditions relative to historical baseline may occur as a result of wetland loss. For jurisdictional wetlands subgrantee will notify the USACE and obtain any required permits prior to the initiation of work. or Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Adverse effects from the project to wetlands will occur. Adverse effects are not minimized in accordance with FEMA's minimization standards in 44 CFR 9.11. Impacts to water quality and hydrology would be detectable and would be frequently altered from the historical baseline or desired water quality conditions. The USACE determines that an EIS is required before an Individual Permit may be issued for jurisdictional wetlands. Biological Resources - Vegetation, Wildlife Impacts to native species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them from the proposed action or alternatives would be detectable, but would not be expected to be outside the natural range of variability. Occasional responses to disturbance by some individuals could be expected, but without interference to feeding, reproduction, or other factors affecting population levels. Sufficient habitat would remain functional to maintain viability of all species. Clearance of more than five (5) acres of woody vegetation. Or Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Impacts from the proposed action or alternatives on native species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them would be detectable, and would be expected to be outside the natural range of variability for long periods of time or be permanent. Population numbers, population structure, genetic variability, and other demographic factors for species might have large, short-term declines, with long-term population numbers significantly depressed. Frequent responses to disturbance by some individuals would be expected, with negative impacts to feeding, reproduction, or other factors resulting in a long-term decrease in population levels. Loss of habitat might affect the viability of at least some native species. Biological Resources - Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Special Status Species Effects on listed species or designated critical habitat are insignificant, discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur and not able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or beneficial. Or During consultation, FWS or NMFS provides written concurrence of "not likely to adversely affect." Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Or During consultation, FWS or NMFS indicates likelihood of adverse effect. Proposed action is modified to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification determination. A determination is issued that the action will jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely modify critical habitat and the agency will proceed with the action. Human Health and Safety Hazardous or toxic materials and/or wastes could be safely and adequately managed in accordance with all applicable regulations and policies, with limited exposures or risks. There would be no short- or long-term adverse impacts to public safety and homeland security preparedness. Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. A net increase in the amount of hazardous or toxic materials and/or wastes to be handled, stored, used, or disposed of, resulting in unacceptable risk, exceedence of available waste disposal capacity, or probable regulatory violation(s). Site contamination conditions could preclude development of sites for the proposed use. Public safety and homeland security preparedness would be compromised and vulnerabilities would increase. Low-income and minority populations There would be no disproportionately high and adverse environmental or health effects to low-income and/or minority populations, or any disproportionate effects would be mitigated. Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. There would be unmitigated disproportionately high and adverse environmental and health impacts to low-income and/or minority populations. Historic Properties No historic properties are affected. Adverse effects to historic resources and a Memorandum of Agreement is developed to resolve the adverse effects and reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Adverse effects to historic resources and consultation is ended without an agreement between FEMA, SHPO, THPO, Tribe (or Native Hawaiian Organization) and ACHP on measures to resolve the adverse effects and reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Infrastructure *Significant impacts to utilities are not necessary and sufficient criteria to prepare an EIS No impacts to infrastructure. Modifications in infrastructure are needed as a result of the action. or Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Communications: Effects would be considered potentially significant if the proposed action or alternatives would require communication systems to meet requirements that could not be provided without major modifications to the existing systems. or Solid Waste: Effects would be considered potentially significant if the proposed action or alternatives would require collection and/or disposal that could not be provided in a reliable manner, which could cause waste to accumulate or be disposed of in a manner that could adversely affect human health or the environment. or Transportation - Additional demand placed on the existing transportation network by the proposed action or alternatives would exceed the capacity of the network, creating disruptions in service in roadways, rail, or air transportation. Air Quality Emissions from the proposed action in nonattainment and maintenance areas would be less than conformity thresholds. A conformity analysis is required and emissions from proposed action or alternatives would conform to established SIP, FIP, or TIP. Or Emissions from proposed stationary sources in attainment areas would not violate NAAQS. Or Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Emissions from the proposed action or alternatives do not conform to established SIP, FIP, or TIP in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Or Emissions from proposed stationary sources in attainment areas would violate NAAQS. Noise Noise levels resulting from the proposed action would exceed natural sounds, as described under no effect, but would not exceed typical noise levels from construction equipment or generators. Noise generated by construction and operation of the facility would be temporary or short-term in nature. Noise levels resulting from the proposed action or alternatives would exceed 70 dBA close to sensitive receptors or 75 dBA in developed areas and mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Noise levels would exceed 75 dBA on a permanent basis or for a prolonged period of time and no mitigation measures are provided. Visual Quality No permanent direct or indirect impacts to the viewsheds of resources such as natural landscapes, Class I Areas, historic properties and/or the aesthetic character of the surrounding area from the proposed action or alternatives would be expected. Any temporary visual disturbances that alter the character of the viewshed and/or aesthetic character of the surrounding area would be returned to its original state following the action. Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Significant direct or indirect impacts to the viewsheds of any resources such as natural landscapes, Class I Areas, historic properties and/or the aesthetic character of the surrounding area from the proposed action or alternatives are anticipated, and these effects would be greater in number, extent, and/or duration than non-significant impacts. Significant impacts could include disturbances that could alter the character of the viewshed of a historical resource, and the viewshed might not resume its original state following the action. Climate Change Emissions of GHG from the proposed action is below 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. Emissions of GHG from the proposed action and alternatives are above 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year but are not significant. Or Mitigation measures are used to reduce the level of impacts below the level of significance. Emissions of GHGof proposed action or group of actions are significant and no mitigation is provided. 5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Implementing the No Action Alternative would have no impacts on areas of concern such as land use, geology, soils, seismicity, noise, and visual quality. The No Action Alternative may result in adverse impacts to areas of concern such as water resources, floodplains, wetlands, biological resources, historic properties, minority and low- income populations, infrastructure, air quality, and human health and safety. Under the no action alternative, facilities, including CI/KR, would remain vulnerable to man-made disasters and the local communities, States, Territories, and the Nation would not be fully prepared for these incidents. For example, the release of hazardous substances from facilities that use, store, process or dispose of such substances could have significant impacts on the natural and physical environment and to human health and safety. Properties of historic significance could be the target of a man-made incident or could be damaged or destroyed as a result of the incident. CI/KR such as major transit facilities, transportation corridors, ports, and emergency operations centers would remain vulnerable. In addition to vulnerable facilities and infrastructure, the No Action Alternative would result in a less prepared community of first responders, local, State, Territory, and Tribal governments. An unprepared response to a natural or man-made disaster could have significant consequences to the natural and physical environment and/or on human health and safety. Not only can environmental resources such as soils, air and water be the medium or target of the incident, but the response to such an incident itself could have irreversible adverse consequences to areas such as water resources, floodplains, wetlands, biological resources, historic properties, air quality, and human health and safety. 5.2 Alternative 2: Program Implementation Under Alternative 2, FEMA would implement the GPD programs, including the eligible activities and project types under each program. 5.2.1 Programs As provided in Section 3.2.1, the GPD grant programs are dynamic and may change each year based on Congressional authorization, mandates and priorities. Grant program implementation activities such as general grant administration, development of program guidance, and policy and regulations are not expected to have significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. The particular project types allowed under the various GPD grant programs that may have impacts on the environment are discussed in Section 5.2.2 below. For any given year, programs that are limited to planning, training, management and administration, exercises within existing facilities, and mobile and portable equipment purchase will not have significant impacts to the human environment. Each year, FEMA will evaluate the grant guidance for each GPD program to determine if the eligible activities are covered under this PEA. For activities not covered by this PEA, FEMA will develop Supplemental Program EAs tiered from this analysis to take into account the impacts of the activity type on the human environment. FEMA will ensure that the grant guidance provides information on the particular environmental planning and historic preservation requirements that must be met prior to the initiation of the project. In addition, FEMA and GPD will develop outreach and training tools such as information bulletins, job aids, and classroom training to assist GPD staff and grantees with environmental planning and historic preservation compliance and to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, significant impacts to the human environment from the implementation of these grant programs. 5.2.2 Project Types The following project types may be allowable under various GPD grant programs and may have the potential to affect the environment, including historic properties: exercises outside of existing facilities, modification of existing structures and facilities (including the installation of fixed equipment), and new construction/replacement. The expected environmental impacts of many typical GPD-funded project types are analyzed below. Impacts are expected to vary substantially by project type, and even within each project type according to certain project parameters. 5.2.2.1 Planning The activities associated with this project type are administrative in nature, have no physical footprint, and use existing facilities, established procedures, and land use designations. They do not involve any changes in land use, ground disturbance, modification of facilities, or release pollutants to environmental media (i.e. air, water, and land). Therefore, this project type would have no effect on land use, geology and soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, biological resources, minority and low-income populations, historic properties, air quality, noise, human health and safety, visual quality, or climate change. This project type will have a beneficial effect on human health and safety and infrastructure by improving local, State, Territory, Tribal and National readiness. FEMA CATEX (iii) covers this project type and its applicability can be extended to GPD activities. This project type is not likely to trigger extraordinary circumstances and, therefore, no further NEPA documentation of activities under this project type will be needed. 5.2.2.2 Training The activities associated with this project type are administrative in nature, have no physical footprint, and use existing facilities, established procedures, and land use designations. They do not involve any changes in land use, ground disturbance, modification of structures or facilities, or release of significant levels of pollutants to environmental media (i.e. air, water, and land). Therefore, this project type would have no effect on land use, geology and soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, biological resources, minority and low-income populations, historic properties, air quality, noise, visual quality or climate change. This project type will have a beneficial effect on human health and safety and infrastructure by improving local, State, Territory, Tribal and National readiness. FEMA CATEX (v) covers this project type and its applicability can be extended to GPD activities. This project type is not likely to trigger extraordinary circumstances and, therefore, no further NEPA review or documentation of activities under this project type will be needed. 5.2.2.3 Management and Administration The activities associated with this project type are administrative in nature, have no physical footprint, and use existing facilities, established procedures, and land use designations. They do not involve any changes in land use, ground disturbance, modification of structures or facilities, or release of significant levels of pollutants to environmental media (i.e. air, water, and land). Therefore, this project type would have no effect on land use, geology and soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, biological resources, minority and low-income populations, historic properties, air quality, noise, visual quality or climate change. This project type will have a beneficial effect on human health and safety and infrastructure by improving local, State, Territory, Tribal and National readiness. FEMA CATEX (i) covers this project type and its applicability can be extended to GPD activities. This project type is not likely to trigger extraordinary circumstances and, therefore, no further NEPA review or documentation of activities under this project type will be needed. 5.2.2.4 Exercises There are seven types of exercises defined within the Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP), which are either discussion-based or operations-based. Discussion-based exercises include seminars, workshops, tabletop exercises, and games, and operations-based exercises include drills, functional exercises, and full-scale exercises. Discussion-based exercises involve only hypothetical actions on the part of the participants, and are strictly notional. Operations-based exercises involve real actions on the part of the participants, and mimic reaction, response, mobilization, and the commitment of personnel and resources that would be required in an emergency response event. 5.2.2.4.1. Discussion-based exercises and functional exercises The purpose of discussion-based exercises is to familiarize participants with current plans, policies, agreements and procedures, or may be used to develop new plans, policies, agreements, and procedures. Functional exercises are a type of operations-based exercise that examine and/or validate the coordination, command, and control between various multi-agency coordination centers, such as emergency operation centers (EOCs) and joint field offices. A functional exercise does not involve any "boots on the ground", or first responders or emergency officials responding to an incident scenario in real time. All actions are simulated, but are communicated between participating EOCs and Command Posts through various forms of communication, including radio, telephone, and computer-based means such as WebEOC. Discussion-based exercises and functional exercises will not involve any changes in land use, ground disturbance, modification of structures or facilities, or release of significant levels of pollutants to environmental media (i.e. air, water, and land). Therefore, this project type would have no effects on land use, geology and soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, biological resources, minority and low-income populations, historic properties, air quality, noise, visual quality, or climate change. This project type will have a beneficial effect on human health and safety and infrastructure by improving local, State, Territory, Tribal and National readiness. FEMA CATEX (v) covers this project type and its applicability can be extended to GPD activities. This project type is not likely to trigger extraordinary circumstances and, therefore, no further NEPA review or documentation of activities under this project type will be needed. 5.2.2.4.2. Drills and Full-Scale exercises Operations-based exercises validate plans, policies, agreements and procedures, clarify roles and responsibilities, and identify resource gaps in an operational environment. In addition to the functional exercises discussed above, operations-based exercises also include drills and full-scale exercises. A drill is a coordinated, supervised activity usually employed to test a single, specific operation or function within a single entity, such as using fire-suppressing foam or setting up an emergency decontamination line. A full-scale exercise is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional, multi-discipline exercise involving both functional and "boots on the ground" responses. These types of exercises may involve major logistic activity such as the creation of trenches and rubble piles, construction of temporary facilities, development of staging areas, and significant redistribution of vehicles or people. These exercises may also involve the release of chemical agents into the environment, such as fire-suppressing chemicals. These actions may have impacts on land use, geology and soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, biological resources, minority and low-income populations, historic properties, infrastructure, air quality, noise, visual quality, and climate change. These impacts may vary depending on the nature of the exercise, where it is located, and the resources present that are likely to be affected. This project type will have beneficial impacts on human health and safety by improving local, State, Territory, Tribal and National readiness to terrorist attacks. FEMA CATEX (v) covers this project type and its applicability can be extended to GPD activities. However, because of the potential environmental impacts of this project type, FEMA will document the applicability of the CATEX to the particular exercise through a REC and take into account any potential extraordinary circumstances and the applicability of other environmental planning and historic preservation requirements. If extraordinary circumstances exist that cannot be adequately addressed, FEMA will require a Tiered SEA. 5.2.2.5 Mobile and Portable Equipment (No Installation) The activities associated with this project type have no physical footprint, and use existing facilities, established procedures, and land use designations. They do not involve any changes in land use, ground disturbance, modification of facilities, or release of significant levels of pollutants to environmental media (i.e. air, water, and land). Therefore, this project type would have no effects on land use, geology and soils, floodplains, wetlands, minority and low-income populations, historic properties, air quality, noise, visual quality, or climate change. The AEL includes equipment that is used directly in water, such as boats, sonar, and barriers. Although this equipment is placed directly in the water, it has no significant impact on water quality when used properly and following industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as regular maintenance and responsible handling, use, and storage of materials that have the potential to affect water quality, such as fuels and lubricants. FEMA CATEX (vi) covers this project type and its applicability can be extended to GPD activities. Except for the purchase of mid-and low-frequency active sonar equipment to be used in marine waters, no further NEPA review or documentation of activities under this project type will be needed because the project type is not likely to trigger extraordinary circumstances. Sonar Under the MMPA, NMFS is responsible for the management and conservation of cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). NMFS is the primary government agency responsible for enforcing the MMPA. The MMPA established a moratorium on the taking (harassment, injury, or killing) of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and on the importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. (NMFS, 2009a). Along with NMFS, FWS is also responsible for assessing the effects on marine mammals under the MMPA. Walruses, sirenians (manatees), sea otters, and polar bears are under FWS jurisdiction (NMFS, 2009b). Both NMFS and FWS are responsible for reviewing and permitting sonar use activities that may affect those marine mammals under their jurisdiction. Marine mammals as a group have functional hearing ranges of 10 Hz to 200 kHz. (Navy 2008). Active sonars that operate within these frequency ranges have the potential to harass marine mammals by affecting their physiology (e.g. auditory system, organ tissue damage due to resonance) and behavior (e.g. stress, orientation, breathing, social relationships, flight response). They may also result in "masking" which is the interference with the clear reception of signals that are of interest to these marine mammals. Mid-frequency sonar (ranging from 1 to 10 kHz) and low-frequency sonar (ranging from 1 Hz to 1 kHz) used in marine waters has the potential to produce these effects on marine mammals. (Reynolds, 2008; Navy 2008). Sonars that operate at frequencies higher than 200 kHz do not have the potential to adversely affect marine mammals because the source attenuates rapidly in the water and are outside of the upper frequency limit of even the ultrasonic species of marine mammals. (Navy 2008). High-frequency sonars operating between 10 kHz and 200 kHz may require coordination with NMFS or FWS. Site-specific information on the geographic area where the equipment will be used, predicted exposure levels (e.g., number, duration and sound pressure level of received pings), and species density and distribution will be needed to determine their potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. FEMA will coordinate with NMFS and FWS on projects involving use of active sonars that operate below the 200 kHz frequency. This coordination may involve Section 7 consultation under the ESA. The grantee or subgrantee is responsible for obtaining any permits that may be required under the MMPA, ESA and CZMA and for complying with any conditions that may be placed on the project as the result of coordination with NFMS/FWS. This PEA will be the only NEPA documentation for passive sonars and active sonars operating in frequencies higher than 200 kHz under this project type. For all other sonars, FEMA will document the applicability of the CATEX (vi) through a REC and take into account any potential extraordinary circumstances as well as the results of the ESA Section 7 consultation process and applicability of other laws such as MMPA and CZMA. If extraordinary circumstances exist and cannot be adequately addressed, FEMA will require a Tiered SEA to determine if the proposed project is likely to have significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. 5.2.2.6 Modification of Existing Structures and Facilities Modification, including renovation, retrofits and expansions, of existing structures and facilities with no or minimal ground disturbance beyond the existing footprint are covered by FEMA CATEX (xvi) and (xvii). As explained below, this project type may have the potential to impact the quality of the human environment based on the site-specific conditions and resources present. Projects of this type that have extraordinary circumstances that cannot be adequately addressed will require a Tiered SEA. 5.2.2.6.1.1. Land Use Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities would not have significant impacts on land use. Some activities under this project type involving structural changes to the existing facility may require a construction permit from local authorities prior to construction. Conditions of the permit normally specify that the proposed facility be constructed and operated in compliance with local zoning ordinances, or that a zoning variance be obtained. The grantee or subgrantee is responsible for obtaining the necessary construction permits. 5.2.2.6.1.2. Geology and Soils Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities in areas that are not characterized by susceptibility to seismic or volcanic activity, tsunamis, landslides, mudslides, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes will not result in significant impacts from geology and soils to the project. Some proposed modifications for structures or facilities located in areas characterized by susceptibility to seismic or volcanic activity, tsunamis, landslides, mudslides, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes may be adversely affected by these hazard conditions. However, the impacts would not be significant given the type of activities under this project type (e.g. installing blast-proof doors and/or windows, security lighting and fencing, CCTVs, and other similar physical security enhancements). Expansion of existing facilities is also included in this project type. As these proposed projects do not involve construction of new buildings, EO 12699 does not apply. Some proposed projects could involve more extensive renovation activities, including the removal and/or construction of walls, installation of bollards, or installation of tire puncture treadles. All such activities must be completed in accordance with building codes of the local area, including seismic requirements, as appropriate. Thus, the intent of EO 12699 is satisfied. Areas that have been disturbed by the removal of the existing vegetation are much more susceptible to water erosion during major precipitation events and to wind erosion during dry and windy weather conditions. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2 which include practices to reduce soil erosion. Proposed projects implementing these measures will not have significant impacts on geology and soils. 5.2.2.6.1.3. Water Resources Proposed projects that would involve modification of the interior of existing structures and facilities would have no significant impact on water resources. These activities are expected to occur within the existing previously disturbed area with minimal or no ground disturbance. Therefore, there is no substantial increase in runoff from the site. Additionally, these types of activities do not result in a substantial increase in groundwater or surface water usage within the project area. Activities involving the expansion of facilities beyond previously disturbed areas or construction may adversely affect water resources and quality in the project area. Uncontrolled stormwater pollution, erosion and sedimentation can result in the pollution of waters of the U.S. (EPA 2007). Table 5-2 shows the most common water pollutants associated with construction activities. Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than one (1) acre. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Proposed projects that implement these measures will not result in significant impacts to water resources and water quality. Activities associated with buildings and structures located waterside have the potential to directly impact aquatic resources, through erosion, runoff and pollutants. Proposed activities involving docks, piers, boathouses, and other facilities or structures dependent on water would be carried out in a manner that minimizes the potential for any hazardous materials (e.g., oil or gasoline) to enter the water, emphasizing BMPs for the handling, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Grantees or subgrantees are responsible for complying with required and applicable permits for these actions including the drafting of a spill prevention and contingency plan when required. Therefore, these activities do not have a significant impact on water resources. Construction activities located in or near a water body may require a RHA Section 10 or a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE. The permits would identify measures that must be implemented to minimize erosion and runoff, such as the use of silt fencing, rip-rap, and other erosion-prevention methods. The grantee or subgrantee is responsible for acquiring all necessary permits and complying with all mitigation measures identified to ensure no significant impacts. 5.2.2.6.1.4. Floodplains Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities that are not located within the 100- year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions) would not have significant impacts on floodplains. Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities that are located in the floodplain would not have impacts on floodplains but may be affected by the floodplain. Impacts to the floodplain are not expected because these activities would occur within the existing previously disturbed area and minimal ground disturbance. However, any components added to existing facilities located in the floodplain may be exposed to flood hazards. Under 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA is required to avoid activities in a floodplain unless it is the only practicable alternative. If locating a project in the floodplain is the only practicable alternative, FEMA must minimize the impacts to the floodplain and the impacts from floods to the facility. Minimization techniques apply to the location of structures, equipment and building contents in floodplain areas. This could include elevating facilities or structures above the base flood elevation. Minimization techniques may include floodproofing structures or facilities. Some of these facilities may be considered critical actions under this analysis because the risk of flooding might be too great. In such cases, the base flood elevation or standard for floodproofing is the 500-year flood event. In addition, if structures are flood-insurable structures and the upgrade constitutes a substantial improvement, FEMA may require the grantee to comply with the local floodplain ordinance and obtain, if necessary, a local floodplain permit. FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 9.11(d) prohibit the agency from funding new construction, including replacement, in coastal high hazard areas (CHHA) or in floodways unless they are functionally dependent uses or facilitate open space use. Boat houses, docks, piers are examples of functionally dependent uses. They also prohibit substantial improvements in the floodway. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects in the floodplain. 5.2.2.6.1.5. Wetlands Modification of existing structures and facilities would not typically involve the installation or construction of any new fixed structures or buildings within a wetland, and therefore would have no significant effect on wetlands and comply with EO 11990 and Section 404 of the CWA. Activities outside of wetland areas but near wetlands may result in uncontrolled stormwater pollution, erosion and sedimentation that may adversely affect these nearby wetlands. Minimization measures include avoidance techniques such as establishing wetland buffer zones and obtaining and complying with NPDES permits and SWPPP measures would reduce the potential adverse effects of these activities to nearby wetlands. Enlargement of a facility or construction within wetland areas would affect wetlands. Under 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA is required to engage in an 8-step decisionmaking process for projects that may have adverse impacts on wetlands, which includes the use of minimization techniques when the project affecting the wetland is the only practicable alternative. Minimization measures include avoidance techniques such as establishing wetland buffer zones to avoid converting or filling wetlands. Compensation measures include such wetland mitigation and wetlands banking. In addition to FEMA's responsibility under 44 CFR Part 9, the grantee or subgrantee must obtain the applicable CWA Section 404 permit prior to the initiation of the project if it will affect wetlands that are considered waters of the U.S. by the USACE. The grantee or subgrantee must coordinate with USACE to determine whether any of the NWPs or a Regional General Permit apply or whether an Individual Permit is required. Proposed projects that require an Individual Permit will require close coordination between the grantee or subgrantee, FEMA and USACE. This process may include the development of a site-specific SEA or the start of the EIS process. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects in or affecting wetlands. 5.2.2.6.1.6. Biological Resources-Vegetation Proposed projects that would involve modifications to the interior of existing structures or facilities would not have significant impacts on vegetation. Enlargement of a facility or construction activities beyond previously disturbed areas may adversely impact vegetation. The removal of vegetation and the inadequate stabilization of the site after construction may cause severe erosion that could result in the loss of topsoil, reduction of infiltration capacity, alteration of natural hydrology of the land, increase in flood risks, and adverse impacts to nearby habitat. (EPA 2007). Ground disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than one (1) acre. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Proposed projects that are less than one (1) acre and for which these measure are implemented will not result in significant impacts to vegetation. With the implementation of these mitigation measures and the absence of any special status species, modifications to existing structures or facilities will not have a significant adverse impact on local vegetation in the vicinity of a project site. In addition, with the control of invasive exotic plant species as discussed previously, compliance with EO 13112 is also achieved. 5.2.2.6.1.7. Biological Resources -Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities would not have significant impacts on terrestrial wildlife. The construction phase of outdoor activities under this project type may have the potential to disturb terrestrial wildlife and their habitat, but most impacts are not expected to be significant or long-term. The incremental loss of habitat from an expansion project would not be significant, as expansion is not expected to significantly alter the building footprint. Operational impacts include long-term loss of habitat and direct impacts on terrestrial wildlife species which may alter feeding, mating, or foraging behaviors, construction-related noise and other disturbance can affect wildlife population usage in areas surrounding the project site. This is especially true during sensitive periods of the species life cycle. Ground disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than one (1) acre. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. 5.2.2.6.1.8. Biological Resources - Aquatic Wildlife Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities that are not located within or do not affect the 100-year floodplain, wetlands or coastal areas would not have significant impacts on aquatic life. Proposed projects within floodplains or affecting floodplains, wetlands or coastal areas may have adverse impacts to aquatic wildlife and/or their habitat. FEMA would avoid taking actions within or affecting floodplains or wetlands. If undertaking the proposed project within the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable alternative, a Tiered SEA will be required. Proposed coastal projects that would result in new beachfront lighting near nesting grounds for sea turtles may adversely affect these resources. Beachfront lighting can disorient sea turtle hatchlings. Hatchlings find their way to the sea by differentiating between dark and bright areas and overhead artificial lights disrupts this ability (Salmon 2003). For coastal projects that would result in new lighting, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to coordinate with the State natural resources or coastal resources agency to determine if the coastal project is likely to affect sea turtle nesting patterns and, if it is, to design the project in a manner to reduce these impacts. If the proposed project cannot be redesigned to reduce these impacts, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.6.1.9. Biological Resources - Listed Species, Critical Habitat and Special Status Species Proposed projects that would involve modification of the interior of existing structures and facilities would not have significant impacts on listed species, critical habitat, or special status species. Enlargement of a facility or construction activities beyond previously disturbed areas in areas that do not have presence or likelihood of listed species, critical habitat or special status species would not have significant impacts on these resources. Enlargement of a facility or construction activities beyond previously disturbed areas in areas where listed species, critical habitat or special status species are present may adversely affect these resources. Activities that have the potential to adversely affect threatened and endangered species would include the installation of security fencing, in-ground vehicle barriers, small building additions, noise from construction activities, and lighting. These activities may result in the displacement or fragmentation of species habitat, disorientation of species due to lighting, and abandonment of nests due to noise disruptions. Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than one (1) acre and FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. However, FEMA will not be able to determine whether the impacts of the specific activity to the listed species, critical habitat or special status species are significant without an appropriate site-specific evaluation and consultation with FWS or NMFS. If consultation results in a No Effect or Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination, then the activity would not have significant impacts on these resources and no additional NEPA review would be required. If the consultation results in the initiation of formal consultation, then FEMA will enter into the formal ESA Section 7 consultation and document the results in a Tiered SEA. There may be situations where a special status species individual, such as bald eagles or golden eagles, is living or nesting near the site of a proposed project. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to identify if a special status species is nearby and, when it is nearby, will encourage grantees and subgrantees to design their projects following existing guidelines for the protection of such species. In addition, FEMA will consult with FWS and/or appropriate State, Tribe, or local government agency before the project is approved to discuss measures needed to avoid impacts to these species. Projects that incorporate measures to avoid impacts to these special status species would not have significant impact on these resources. If the proposed project cannot be designed to avoid impacts to these special status species, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.6.1.10. Human Health and Safety These types of projects are expected to have a beneficial impact on human health and safety throughout the U.S. and its territories. Modifications of existing structures and facilities such as security guard buildings, EOCs, stadiums, etc. reduces the risk of attacks and assists agencies and communities in their response should an attack or national disaster occur. Updated equipment, especially first responder medical and firefighting equipment, allows responding agencies to ensure better care for victims and better protection for themselves. Updated security provides greater protection to personnel working in these facilities, helping to minimize loss of life and facilitating continued performance of personnel duties during an emergency event. The grantee or subgrantee is responsible for checking and complying with the EPCRA and CFATS regulations. Waste fuel and/or oil associated with the new facilities must be disposed of according to Federal and State regulations. Additionally, the above-ground fuel storage tanks for the emergency generators would be located within berms to limit runoff and infiltration should a spill or leak occur. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to locate containers with a capacity to store more than 100 gallons of hazardous substances of an explosive or fire prone nature at an acceptable separation distance from facilities or structures where people can congregate such as schools or hospitals. Grantees and subgrantees may use the HUD's guidance "Siting of HUD-Assisted Projects near Hazardous Facilities (HUD -1060-CPD, Sept. 1996), incorporated in this PEA by reference. The grantee or subgrantee will be responsible for meeting the "all appropriate inquiries" rule in 40 C.F.R. 312.10 before acquiring a new property. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to prepare, implement, and regularly update spill prevention and control plan when needed. The use, handling, storage and disposal will be disposed of according to Federal, State or Territory, and local regulations. Therefore, no significant long-term impacts associated with hazardous waste/materials are anticipated from the renovation, retrofitting, or operation of these facilities. 5.2.2.6.1.11. Minority and Low Income Populations Proposed projects that would involve modification of the interior of existing structures and facilities are not likely to have disproportionate high and adverse impacts on minority or low- income populations. The impacts on minority or low-income populations for proposed projects that involve the enlargement of a facility or construction activities beyond previously disturbed areas would be those associated with ground disturbance (e.g. localized air quality, stormwater pollution), traffic, and noise. However, these impacts would affect all populations and would not be disproportionally directed to minority or low-income populations. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2 which include practices to control these impacts. Proposed projects implementing these measures would minimize impacts to all populations and would not result in disproportionate high and adverse environmental or health effects on minority or low-income populations. 5.2.2.6.1.12. Historic Properties - Archaeology Proposed interior modification of existing structures and facilities would have no effect on archaeological resources because there would be no ground disturbing activities. Expansion and other external construction-related activities, such as trenching, in sites that have low probability for the presence of archaeological deposits or that have been previously surveyed and found not to have archaeological deposits would not have significant impacts on this resource. Expansion and other external construction-related activities, such as trenching, in sites that have moderate to high probability for the presence of archaeological deposits may have adverse effects on this resource. The presence of modern structures or facilities does not mean that no archaeological resources exist or that they have been destroyed. While existing structures may have disturbed potential archaeological deposits at the time of construction, intact resources may have been left undisturbed. In addition, existing historic buildings or structures may also have archaeological components and any landscaping or other activities that disturb the ground could affect potential archaeological deposits. Geographical location and physical characteristics of the site dictate whether a proposed project will affect archaeological resources. If such activities are anticipated, then Section 106 consultation is necessary to determine whether potential archaeological resources exist and whether they would be adversely affected by the proposed project. If the proposed project will have an adverse effect, FEMA must develop ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the archaeological resources in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, the grantee and subgrantee, and other consulting parties. If the proposed project does not have the potential to affect archaeological resources, then there is no significant impact to this resource and no further Section 106 review would be required. If the proposed project has the potential to affect archaeological resources, FEMA will initiate the Section 106 review process. If the Section 106 process results in an MOA or other agreement to resolve adverse effects and that agreement is required in order to reduce the level of impacts below significance under NEPA, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.6.1.13. Historic Properties - Other Historic Properties Proposed interior modification of existing structures and facilities that are not considered historic properties would have no effect on historic properties. Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities that are historic properties or exterior work on structures and facilities within the APE of an historic property may have adverse effects on historic properties. The critical infrastructure or key resources that are the subject of GPD- funded projects may be objects, structures, building, sites, or districts that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. These historic properties may include NHLs. Activities under this project type that could have adverse effects on historic properties include demolition, modification of historic buildings and structures, ground disturbance, and activities within the APE of an identified historic property. Types of adverse effects may include the loss of the historic property, abandonment of the historic property, alteration of historic-defining features or components, and diminishment of viewsheds. If the proposed project does not have the potential to affect historic properties, then there is no significant impact to this resource and no further Section 106 review would be required. If the proposed project has the potential to affect historic properties, FEMA will initiate the Section 106 review process. If the Section 106 process results in an MOA or other agreement to resolve adverse effects and that agreement is required in order to reduce the level of impacts below significance under NEPA, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.6.1.14. Infrastructure Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities would not have significant adverse impacts to infrastructure. These activities would use existing infrastructure or would require minimum infrastructure development. Expansion of facilities could result in long-term changes in traffic flow in the area near the project site due to the ingress and egress of workers. However, these changes are not considered a significant impact as roadway construction and traffic flow patterns are completed according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State Department of Transportation (DOT) protocols. Construction may lead to a temporary increase in solid waste generation, but this increase would be short-term and would not be expected to be significant. 5.2.2.6.1.15. Air Quality Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities would not have significant adverse impacts on air quality. Expansion and construction-related actions, such as trenching and removal of vegetation that could result in an adverse impact on air quality are generally associated with short-term emissions, principally from site clearing activities and the use of construction equipment and related vehicles. FEMA does not expect that these activities would result in a violation of the GCR or require a PSD permit. Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than one (1) acre. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Proposed projects that implement these measures will not result in significant impacts to air quality. Older structures often contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos. Any activities associated with the demolition of facilities must be done in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous materials. 5.2.2.6.1.16. Noise Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities will not have significant adverse impacts on noise. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2, which includes equipment operation during business hours (Monday through Friday from 7am to 5pm) and using equipment with the manufacturer's standard noise control devices (e.g. mufflers, baffling, engine enclosures). In addition, grantees and subgrantees will be required to comply with any State, Territory, Tribal, or local noise control requirements. With these measures the activity would not result in significant noise impacts. A Tiered SEA will be required for projects that would result in noise levels exceeding 70 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time and will take place less than 200 feet from sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, hospitals, and residential areas). 5.2.2.6.1.17. Visual Quality Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities will not have significant adverse aesthetic impacts. Any impacts that do occur would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project. Short-term impacts would be expected due to the presence of heavy equipment, the presence of debris and construction materials, and the disruption of the site during construction. However, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to implement the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2 and conduct site cleanup and restoration following the completion of construction, which would limit these impacts. 5.2.2.6.1.18. Climate Change Proposed modification of existing structures and facilities would have no significant impacts to climate change. Increased emissions from construction activities would be of a short duration and small scale. These project types would not result in changes in land use or significant increases, if any, in energy requirements and fossil fuel-burning activities. 5.2.2.7 New Construction Currently FEMA does not have a CATEX that covers new construction. As described in Section 3.2.2.8, the activities covered under this project type are new construction projects, including replacement of facilities, of up to five (5) acres in previously undisturbed, disturbed, or developed sites. Examples of new construction include security guard buildings, EOCs, and fire stations. FEMA will conduct site-specific evaluation and document the applicability of this PEA and the applicability of other environmental planning and historic preservation requirements to the proposed project through a REC. A Tiered SEA will be required for proposed projects with impacts that are not adequately addressed in this PEA or for projects where mitigation is required to address impacts. 5.2.2.7.1. New construction, including replacement, on previously developed or disturbed sites 5.2.2.7.1.1. Land Use Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not result in land use changes and would not have significant impacts on land use. The grantee or subgrantee will be required to obtain all necessary permits, including applicable construction permits, before initiating work. Construction permits may include requirements for the construction and operation of the facility to be in compliance with local zoning ordinances or in compliance with any zoning variance granted. Any changes in zoning must be coordinated at the local government level before work begins and may require site-specific evaluation. FEMA is prohibited from providing assistance for new construction activities, including replacements, in CBRS units. FEMA will require the grantee or subgrantee to coordinate with the State Coastal Management Agency to obtain a consistency determination when the proposed project occurs within a State's designated coastal zone. New construction in previously developed areas or replacements of facilities are exempt from the FPPA requirements. 5.2.2.7.1.2. Geology and Soils Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas that are not in areas characterized by susceptibility to seismic or volcanic activity, tsunamis, landslides, mudslides, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes would not result in significant impacts from geology and soils to the project. Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed sites in areas characterized by the hazards described above will require the use of certain engineering technologies or require consultation with State or Federal agencies before the project may proceed. All structures in areas of seismic risk that are covered by this PEA must be designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate seismic design and construction standards, which are promulgated through NEHRP. Therefore, the constructed buildings will represent a low seismic hazard to people and equipment housed in the building during a seismic event. In addition, construction of new facilities may have adverse effects to soils. Inadequate stabilization of the site may produce uncontrolled erosion that may result in the loss of topsoil, reduction of infiltration capacity, alteration of natural hydrology of the land, increase in flood risks, and adverse impacts to nearby habitat. (EPA 2007). Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than five (5) acres. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Proposed projects implementing these measures will not have significant impacts on geology and soils. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects that would result in more than five (5) acres of ground disturbance or that do not implement applicable mitigation measures in Section 7.2. 5.2.2.7.1.3. Water Resources Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas are not expected to have significant impacts to water resources or water quality. This activity would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces at a given location. However, areas that have been disturbed by the removal of the existing vegetation are much more susceptible to water erosion during major precipitation events and to wind erosion during dry and windy weather conditions. Uncontrolled stormwater pollution, erosion and sedimentation can result in the pollution of waters of the US (EPA 2007). Table 5-2 shows the most common water pollutants associated with construction activities. Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than five (5) acres. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing any applicable NPDES permits and meeting permit conditions, which may include developing a SWPPP for the construction activity. Proposed projects that obtain and comply with the required NPDES permits and SWPPP will not result in significant impacts to water resources or water quality. 5.2.2.7.1.4. Floodplains Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas that are not located within the 100-year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions) would not have significant impacts on floodplains. Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have impacts on floodplains but may be affected by the floodplain. Impacts to the floodplain are not expected because these activities would occur within the existing previously disturbed area. However, any new facilities located in the floodplain may be exposed to flood hazards. Under 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA is required to avoid activities in a floodplain unless it is the only practicable alternative. If undertaking a proposed project in the floodplain is the only practicable alternative, then FEMA must minimize the impacts to the floodplain and the impacts from floods to the facility. Minimization techniques apply to the location of structures, equipment and building contents in floodplain areas. This could include elevating facilities or structures above the base flood elevation. Minimization techniques may include floodproofing structures or facilities. Some of these facilities may be considered critical actions under this analysis because the risk of flooding might be too great. In such cases, the base flood elevation or standard for floodproofing is the 500-year flood event. In addition, if structures are flood-insurable structures and the upgrade constitutes a substantial improvement, FEMA will require the grantee to comply with the local floodplain ordinance and obtain, if necessary, a local floodplain permit. FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 9.11(d) prohibit the agency from funding new construction, including replacement, in coastal high hazard areas (CHHA) or in floodways unless they are functionally dependent uses or facilitate open space use. They also prohibit substantial improvements in the floodway. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects in the floodplain. 5.2.2.7.1.5. Wetlands Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant impacts on wetlands. However, areas that have been disturbed by the removal of the existing vegetation are much more susceptible to water erosion during major precipitation events and to wind erosion during dry and windy weather conditions. Both types of erosion can cause adverse impacts on wetlands located down gradient or down wind. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing any applicable NPDES permits and meeting permit conditions, which may include developing a SWPPP for the construction activity. The SWPPP would include practices to control soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution that may affect wetlands. Projects that obtain and comply with the required NPDES permits and SWPPP will not result in significant impacts to wetlands. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects in or affecting wetlands. 5.2.2.7.1.6. Biological Resources - Vegetation Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant impacts on vegetation. Areas that have been disturbed by the removal of the existing vegetation are much more susceptible to water erosion during major precipitation events and to wind erosion during dry and windy weather conditions. Both types of erosion can cause adverse impacts on vegetation located down gradient or down wind, and on fish and wildlife resources located in off-site areas. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to secure any applicable NPDES permits, which may include developing a SWPPP for the construction activity. FEMA will also require grantees and subgrantees to follow the mitigation measures in Section 7.2. Projects that obtain and comply with the required NPDES permits and SWPPP and follow these measures will not result in significant impacts to vegetation. With the implementation of these mitigation measures and the absence of any special status species, new construction or replacement of a structure or facility will not have a significant adverse impact on local vegetation. Projects involving removal of more than five (5) acres of woody vegetation will require a Tiered SEA. 5.2.2.7.1.7. Biological Resources - Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant impacts on terrestrial wildlife. These areas have been previously disturbed and the presence of terrestrial wildlife is not likely. 5.2.2.7.1.8. Biological Resources - Aquatic Wildlife Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant impacts on aquatic wildlife. These areas have been previously disturbed and the presence of terrestrial wildlife is not likely. An exception is coastal projects that would result in new beachfront lighting near nesting grounds for sea turtles. Beachfront lighting can disorient sea turtle hatchlings. Hatchlings find their way to the sea by differentiating between dark and bright areas and overhead artificial lights disrupts this ability (Salmon 2003). For proposed coastal projects that would result in new lighting, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to coordinate with the State natural resources or coastal resources agency to determine if the project is likely to affect sea turtle nesting patterns and, if it is, to design the project in a manner to reduce these impacts. If the proposed project cannot be redesigned to reduce these impacts, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.7.1.9. Biological Resources - Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Special Status Species Proposed construction projects in areas that do not have presence or likelihood of listed species, critical habitat or special status species would not have significant impacts on these resources. Construction projects in areas where listed species, critical habitat or special status species are present may adversely affect these resources. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. FEMA will not be able to determine whether the impacts of the specific activity to the listed species, critical habitat or special status species are significant without an appropriate site-specific evaluation and consultation with FWS or NMFS. If consultation results in a No Effect or Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination, then the activity would not have significant impacts on these resources. If the consultation results in the initiation of formal consultation, then FEMA will enter into the formal ESA Section 7 consultation and document the results in a Tiered SEA. There may be situations where a special status species individual, such as bald eagles or golden eagles, is living or nesting near the site of a proposed project. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to identify if a special status species is nearby and, when it is nearby, will encourage grantees and subgrantees to design their projects following existing guidelines for the protection of such species. In addition, FEMA will consult with FWS and/or appropriate State, Tribe, or local government agency before the project is approved to discuss measures needed to avoid impacts to these species. Projects that incorporate measures to avoid impacts to these special status species would not have significant impact on these resources. If the proposed project cannot be designed to avoid impacts to these special status species, then FEMA will require a Tiered SEA. 5.2.2.7.1.10. Human Health and Safety These types of proposed projects are expected to have a beneficial impact on human health and safety throughout the United States and its territories. The construction of new first responder and emergency response facilities, as well as other structures to house homeland security and emergency preparedness functions, reduces the risk of attacks and assists agencies and communities in their response should a disaster occur. Updated security and response capacity provides greater protection, helping to minimize loss of life and facilitating continued performance of first responder personnel duties during an attack or national disaster. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for checking and complying with the EPCRA and CFATS regulations, as appropriate, is the responsibility of the grantee or subgrantee. Waste fuel and/or oil associated with the new facilities must be disposed of according to Federal and State regulations. Additionally, the above-ground fuel storage tanks for the emergency generators would be located within berms to limit runoff and infiltration should a spill or leak occur. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to locate containers with a capacity to store more than 100 gallons of hazardous substances of an explosive or fire prone nature at an acceptable separation distance from facilities or structures where people can congregate such as schools or hospitals. Grantees and subgrantees may use the HUD's guidance "Siting of HUD-Assisted Projects near Hazardous Facilities (HUD -1060-CPD, Sept. 1996), incorporated in this PEA by reference. The grantee or subgrantee will be responsible for meeting the "all appropriate inquiries" rule in 40 C.F.R. 312.10 before acquiring a new property. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for preparing, implementing, and regularly updating spill prevention and control plan when needed. The use, handling, storage and disposal will be disposed of according to Federal, State or Territory, and local regulations. Therefore, no significant long-term impacts associated with hazardous waste/materials are anticipated from the renovation, retrofitting, or operation of these facilities. 5.2.2.7.1.11. Minority and Low-income Populations The impacts on minority or low-income populations for proposed new construction projects in previously developed or disturbed areas include those associated with ground disturbance (e.g. localized air quality, stormwater pollution), traffic, and noise. However, these impacts would affect all populations and would not be disproportionally directed to minority or low-income populations. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2 which include practices to control these impacts. Some proposed new construction projects may involve the placement of facilities that may be of concern (e.g. hazardous materials storage sites) near minority or low-income populations. Grantees are responsible for adequate planning and community outreach for these projects before they are submitted to FEMA. For proposed projects of concern, FEMA will require evidence from grantees and subgrantees of community outreach efforts. The replacement or relocation of fire stations and other operation centers may result in the indirect effect of abandonment of a station or operation center that served an area with predominant low-income or minority populations. Grantees or subgrantees are responsible for adequate planning of these activities to ensure that service times and areas are not affected in a manner that results in disproportionate high and adverse indirect impacts on these populations. For these proposed projects, FEMA will require evidence from grantees and subgrantees of community outreach efforts. With appropriate planning, community outreach, and implementation of the mitigation measures, these projects are not anticipated to have a significant impact on minority or low-income populations. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects having disproportionate high and adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income populations. 5.2.2.7.1.12. Historic Properties - Archaeology Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant impact on these resources if those sites have low probability for the presence of archaeological deposits or have been previously surveyed and found not to have archaeological deposits. Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas that have moderate to high probability for the presence of archaeological deposits may have adverse effects on archaeological resources. The presence of modern structures or facilities does not mean that no archaeological resources exist or that they have already been destroyed. While existing structures may have disturbed potential archaeological deposits at the time of construction, intact resources may have been left undisturbed. In addition, existing historic buildings or structures may also have archaeological components and any landscaping or other activities that disturb the ground could affect potential archaeological deposits. Geographical location and physical characteristics of the site dictate whether a proposed project will affect archaeological resources. If such activities are anticipated, Section 106 consultation is necessary to determine whether potential archaeological resources exist and whether they would be adversely affected by the proposed project. If the proposed project will have an adverse effect, FEMA must develop ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the archaeological resources in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, the grantee and subgrantee, and other consulting parties. If the proposed project does not have the potential to affect archaeological resources, then there is no significant impact to this resource and no further Section 106 review would be required. If the proposed project has the potential to affect archaeological resources, FEMA will initiate the Section 106 review process. If the Section 106 process results in an MOA or other agreement to resolve adverse effects and that agreement is required in order to reduce the level of impacts below significance under NEPA, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.7.1.13. Historic Properties - Other Historic Properties Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas that do not affect historic properties would not have significant impacts on these resources. Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas that affect historic properties may have significant impacts these resources. The critical infrastructure or key resources that are the subject of these proposed projects may be objects, structures, building, sites, or districts that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. These historic properties may include NHLs. Proposed activities under this project type that could have adverse effects on historic properties include the demolition, facilities' modifications, ground disturbance, and the placement of new facilities or structures within the APE of an identified historic property. Types of adverse effects may include the loss the historic property, abandonment of the historic property, alteration of historic defining features or components, displacement or relocation of a historic property, and diminishment of viewsheds. If the proposed project does not have the potential to affect historic properties, then there is no significant impact to this resource and no further Section 106 review would be required. If the proposed project has the potential to affect historic properties, FEMA will initiate the Section 106 review process. If the Section 106 process results in an MOA or other agreement to resolve adverse effects and that agreement is required in order to reduce the level of impacts below significance under NEPA, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.7.1.14. Infrastructure Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant adverse impacts on infrastructure. New construction would use existing infrastructure or would require minimum infrastructure development. Construction of new facilities could result in long-term changes in traffic flow in the area near the site due to the ingress and egress of workers, regardless of whether the site was previously developed. However, these changes are not considered a significant impact as roadway construction and traffic flow patterns are completed according to FHWA and local Department of Transportation (DOT) protocols. Construction may lead to a temporary increase in solid waste generation, but this increase would be short-term and would not be expected to be significant. The construction of new facilities will enhance the protection of CI/KR at the local, State, Territory, Tribal, and national level, resulting in a beneficial impacts to infrastructure. 5.2.2.7.1.15. Air Quality Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant adverse impacts on air quality. Construction-related activities that could result in an adverse impact on air quality are generally associated with short-term emissions, principally from site clearing activities and the use of construction equipment and vehicles. FEMA does not expect construction or demolition activities to result in a violation of the GCR or cause PSD deterioration. Operation of the new facilities would not have significant impact on the local or regional air quality. In general, operation of new or replaced facilities would not result in a new major source and does not result in a violation of the GCR or require a PSD permit. Fugitive dust and air pollutants associated with the operation of construction equipment may affect air quality conditions at the project site. Off-road engines used in construction-related vehicles such as backhoes, front end loaders, bulldozers, tractors, graders, excavators, etc. are typically diesel-based that produce nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. (USEPA 2003). In FEMA's experience, the air emissions associated with individual site preparation and construction activities in sites less than five (5) acres do not rise to the level of significance even in non-attainment areas. Table 5-3 and Appendix C show, for example, an estimate made by the agency on the air emissions associated with equipment used for site preparation and construction activities for the placement of alternative housing units in the Gulf Coast of the U.S. (FEMA 2009). These estimates were based on US EPA's NONROAD Model (USEPA 2005). Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than five (5) acres. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Proposed projects that implement these measures will not result in significant impacts to air quality. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects that would have more than five (5) acres of ground disturbance or that do not implement applicable measures in Section 7.2. Older structures often contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos. Any activities associated with the demolition of facilities must be done in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous materials. 5.2.2.7.1.16. Noise Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have significant adverse impacts from noise. Table 5-4 shows an estimate of the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment and attenuation of noise at various distances. To estimate the attenuation of the noise over a given distance the following relationship was used: dBA2 = dBA1 - 20 log (d2/ d1) Where: dBA2 = dBA at distance 2 from source (predicted); dBA1 = dBA at distance 1 from source (measured); d1 = distance to location 2 from source; d2 = distance to location 1 from source (50 ft.); Source: CDOT 1998. Table 5-4. Estimated Sound Levels for Construction Equipment and Attenuation at Various Distances Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 ft. from Source1 Estimate at 100 ft. Estimate at 200 ft. Estimate at 500 ft. Estimate at 1,000 ft. Air Compressor 81 75 69 61 55 Backhoe 80 74 68 60 54 Ballast Equalizer 82 76 70 62 56 Ballast Tamper 83 77 71 63 57 Compactor 82 76 70 62 56 Concrete Mixer 85 79 73 65 59 Concrete Pump 82 76 70 62 56 Concrete Vibrator 76 70 64 56 50 Crane Derrick 88 82 76 68 62 Crane Mobile 83 77 71 63 57 Dozer 85 79 73 65 59 Generator 81 75 69 61 55 Grader 85 79 73 65 59 Impact Wrench 85 79 73 65 59 Jack Hammer 88 82 76 68 62 Loader 85 79 73 65 59 Paver 89 83 77 69 63 Pneumatic Tool 85 79 73 65 59 Pump 76 70 64 56 50 Rock Drill 98 92 86 78 72 Roller 74 68 62 54 48 Saw 76 70 64 56 50 Scraper 89 83 77 69 63 Shovel 82 76 70 62 56 Truck 88 82 76 68 62 1Source: FHWA 2006. The estimates provided in Table 5-4 indicate that most of the equipment commonly associated with construction activities produces noise levels that exceed 75 dBA. A distance of 200 feet or more is needed between most of the construction equipment provided and a receptor to attenuate the noise levels those that are acceptable. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow, the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2, which includes operation during business hours (Monday thru Friday from 7am to 5pm) and the use equipment using the manufacturer's standard noise control devices (i.e. mufflers, baffling, and/or engine enclosures). In addition, grantees and subgrantees will be required to comply with any State, Territory, Tribal, or local noise control requirements. With these measures the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts. FEMA will document those actions that would result in noise levels exceeding 70 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time and will take place less than 200 feet from sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, hospitals, and residential areas) in a Tiered SEA. 5.2.2.7.1.17. Visual Quality Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas may have adverse aesthetic impacts both short-term during the construction period and long-term during operation of the new facility. Short-term impacts would be expected due to the presence of heavy equipment, the presence of debris and construction materials, and the disruption of the site during construction. However, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to implement the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2 which would limit these impacts. Long-term aesthetic impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to take prudent measures, such as maintaining existing stands of trees and revegetating with native plants where possible, to minimize long-term impacts. In addition, the design and building materials used for new structures and facilities may be selected to be compatible with the surrounding existing architecture, which would help minimize impacts. 5.2.2.7.1.18. Climate Change Proposed new construction, including replacements, of structures or facilities in previously developed or disturbed areas would not have a significant impact on climate change. Increased emissions from construction activities would be of short duration and a limited scale. While land use would be altered at the site and there would be an increase in energy usage to provide power to the facility, the scale at which these changes would occur would not be significant. 5.2.2.7.2. New construction on undeveloped or undisturbed sites 5.2.2.7.2.1. Land Use Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that are consistent with existing land use/ zoning designations, are not in CBRS units, are consistent with a State's coastal management plan, and do not affect important farmlands would not have significant impacts on land use. Some proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may involve land use/zoning changes. Construction of a new facility may require a change in land use or zoning, depending on the location chosen for construction. Any proposed projects involving structural changes to the existing facility require a construction permit from local authorities prior to construction. Conditions of the permit normally specify that the proposed facility be constructed and operated in compliance with local zoning ordinances, or that a zoning variance be obtained. The grantee or subgrantee is responsible for obtaining the necessary construction permits. FEMA is prohibited from providing assistance for new construction activities in CBRS units. FEMA will require the grantee or subgrantee to coordinate with the State Coastal Management Agency to obtain a consistency determination when the propose project occurs within a State's designated coastal zone. If a proposed new construction project will convert prime or unique farmland to non-agricultural use, FEMA will conduct the required assessment (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006) and consult with NRCS when necessary. If a proposed project scores greater than 160 points on Form AD-1006, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.7.2.2. Geology and Soils Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that are not in areas characterized by susceptibility to seismic or volcanic activity, tsunamis, landslides, mudslides, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes would not result significant impacts from geology and soils to the project. Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that are in areas characterized by the hazards identified above will require the use of certain engineering technologies or require consultation with State or Federal agencies before the project may proceed. All structures in areas of seismic risk that are covered by this PEA must be designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate seismic design and construction standards, which are promulgated through NEHRP. Therefore, the constructed buildings will represent a low seismic hazard to people and equipment housed in the building during a seismic event. In addition, proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may have adverse effects to soils. Inadequate stabilization of the site may produce uncontrolled erosion that may result in the loss of topsoil, reduction of infiltration capacity, alteration of natural hydrology of the land, increase in flood risks, and adverse impacts to nearby habitat (EPA 2007). Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than five (5) acres. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Proposed projects that implement these measures will not result in significant impacts to geology and soils. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects that would result in more than five (5) acres of ground disturbance or that do not implement applicable measures in Section 7.2. 5.2.2.7.2.3. Water Resources Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may adversely affect water resources and quality in the project area. Uncontrolled stormwater pollution, erosion and sedimentation can result in the pollution of waters of the U.S. (EPA 2007). Table 5-2 shows the most common water pollutants associated with construction activities.Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than five (5) acres. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing any applicable NPDES permits and meeting permit conditions, which may include developing a SWPP for the proposed construction project. If proposed new construction projects involve the filling of waters of the U.S., FEMA will require the grantee or subgrantee to coordinate with the USACE to obtain a Section 10 permit if the water is navigable or a Section 404 Nationwide, Regional General, or Individual permit for non-navigable waters before the project starts. Proposed projects that would require an Individual Permit will require close coordination between the grantee or subgrantee, FEMA, and USACE. A Tiered SEA will be required for projects that require an Individual Permit. If a proposed new construction project occurs in the vicinity of a wild or scenic river, FEMA will coordinate with the appropriate agency. If the project affects a wild or scenic river, a Tiered SEA will be required. Proposed new construction projects that comply with the required NPDES permits, comply with applicable Nationwide or General permits under Section 404 and Section 10, and do not affect wild or scenic rivers will not result in significant impacts to water resources and water quality. 5.2.2.7.2.4. Floodplains Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that are not located within the 100-year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions) would not have significant impacts on floodplains. Under 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA is required to avoid activities in a floodplain unless it is the only practicable alternative. If undertaking a project in the floodplain is the only practicable alternative, FEMA must minimize the impacts to the floodplain and the impacts from floods to the new structure or facility. Minimization techniques apply to the location of structures, equipment and building contents in floodplain areas. This could include elevating facilities or structures above the base flood elevation. Minimization techniques may include floodproofing structures or facilities. Some of these facilities may be considered critical actions under this analysis because the risk of flooding might be too great. In such cases, the base flood elevation or standard for floodproofing is the 500-year flood event. In addition, if structures are flood- insurable structures and the upgrade constitutes a substantial improvement, FEMA will require the grantee to comply with the local floodplain ordinance and obtain, if necessary, a local floodplain permit. FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 9.11(d) prohibit the agency from funding new construction, including replacement, in coastal high hazard areas (CHHA) or in floodways unless they are functionally dependent uses or facilitate open space use. They also prohibit substantial improvements in the floodway. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects in the floodplain. 5.2.2.7.2.5. Wetlands Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that are not located in or would not otherwise affect wetlands would not have significant impacts on wetlands. Some proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may have adverse impacts to wetlands. Activities outside of wetland areas but near wetlands may result in uncontrolled stormwater pollution, erosion and sedimentation that may adversely affect these nearby wetlands. Minimization measures include avoidance techniques such as establishing wetland buffer zones and obtaining and complying with NPDES permits and SWPPP measures would reduce the potential adverse impacts of these proposed projects to nearby wetlands. Some proposed new construction projects may take place within wetland areas. Under 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA is required to engage in an 8-step decisionmaking process for projects that may have adverse impacts on wetlands, which includes the use of minimization techniques when the project affecting the wetland is the only practicable alternative. Minimization measures include avoidance techniques such as establishing wetland buffer zones to avoid converting or filling wetlands. Compensation measures include such wetland mitigation and wetlands banking. In addition to FEMA's responsibility under 44 CFR Part 9, the grantee or subgrantee must obtain the applicable CWA Section 404 permit prior to the initiation of the project if it will affect wetlands that are considered waters of the U.S. by the USACE. The grantee or subgrantee must coordinate with USACE to determine whether any of the NWPs or a Regional General Permit apply or whether an Individual Permit is required. Proposed projects that would require an Individual Permit will require close coordination between the grantee or subgrantee, FEMA, and USACE. A Tiered SEA will be required for projects in or affecting wetlands. 5.2.2.7.2.6. Biological Resources - Vegetation Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may have adverse impacts to vegetation. Areas that have been disturbed by the removal of the existing vegetation are much more susceptible to water erosion during major precipitation events and to wind erosion during dry and windy weather conditions. Both types of erosion can cause adverse impacts on vegetation located down gradient or down wind, and on fish and wildlife resources located in off-site areas. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for securing any applicable NPDES permits, which may include developing a SWPPP for the construction activity. FEMA will also require grantees and subgrantees to follow the mitigation measures in Section 7.2. Proposed projects that obtain and comply with the required NPDES permits and SWPPP and implement these mitigation measures will not result in significant impacts to vegetation. With the implementation of these mitigation measures and the absence of any special status species, new construction or replacement of a structure or facility would not have a significant adverse impact on local vegetation. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects that would result in more than five (5) acres of ground disturbance or that do not implement applicable measures in Section 7.2. 5.2.2.7.2.7. Biological Resources - Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may have adverse impacts to terrestrial wildlife and/or their habitat. Operational impacts include long-term loss of habitat and direct impacts on terrestrial wildlife species. Impacts on habitat are generally limited to new construction within an undisturbed area. Construction-related noise and other disturbance can affect wildlife population usage in areas surrounding the project site. This is especially true during sensitive periods of the species' life cycle. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Projects that implement these measures will not result in significant impacts to terrestrial wildlife. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects that would result in more than five (5) acres of ground disturbance or would not implement applicable measures in Section 7.2. 5.2.2.7.2.8. Biological Resources - Aquatic Wildlife New construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that are not located within or affect the 100-year floodplain, wetlands, or coastal areas would not have significant impacts on aquatic life. Proposed projects within floodplains or affecting floodplains, wetlands, or coastal areas may have adverse impacts to aquatic wildlife and/or their habitat. FEMA would avoid taking actions within or affecting floodplains or wetlands. If undertaking the project within the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable alternative, a Tiered SEA will be required. Proposed coastal projects that would result in new beachfront lighting near nesting grounds for sea turtles may adversely affect these resources. Beachfront lighting can disorient sea turtle hatchlings. Hatchlings find their way to the sea by differentiating between dark and bright areas and overhead artificial lights disrupts this ability (Salmon 2003). For proposed coastal projects that would result in new lighting, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to coordinate with the State natural resources or coastal resources agency to determine if the project is likely to affect sea turtle nesting patterns and, if it is, to design the project in a manner to reduce these impacts. If the project cannot be redesigned to reduce these impacts, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.7.2.9. Biological Resources - Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Special Status Species Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites would affect threatened, endangered, and special status species in the same manner that vegetation and wildlife would be affected. The threatened and endangered species that could be affected would depend on the physiographic region in which the proposed project is located and the nature and extent of the habitats present at the project site and surrounding areas. Construction- related activities may adversely affect threatened and endangered species by potentially reducing, altering, or fragmenting available habitat; introducing invasive species; causing injury or mortality to wildlife; noise; and behavioral impacts. Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than five (5) acres and FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. However, FEMA will not be able to determine whether the impacts of the specific activity to the listed species, critical habitat or special status species are significant without an appropriate site-specific evaluation and consultation with FWS or NMFS. If consultation results in a No Effect or Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination, the activity would not have significant impacts on these resources and no additional NEPA review would be required. If the consultation results in the initiation of formal consultation, FEMA will enter into the formal ESA Section 7 consultation and document the results in a Tiered SEA. In addition, there may be situations where a special status species individual, such as bald eagle or golden eagle, is living or nesting in the vicinity of a proposed project. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to identify if a special status species is nearby and, when it is nearby, will encourage grantees and subgrantees to design their projects following existing guidelines for the protection of such species. In addition, FEMA will consult with FWS and/or appropriate State, Tribe, or local government agency before the project is approved to discuss measures needed to avoid impacts to these individuals. Projects that incorporate measures to avoid impacts to these special status individuals would not have significant impact on these resources. If the project cannot be designed to avoid impacts to these special status individuals, then FEMA will require a Tiered SEA. 5.2.2.7.2.10. Human Health and Safety Proposed new construction projects are expected to have a beneficial impact on human health and safety throughout the U.S. and its territories. The construction of new first responder and emergency response facilities, as well as other structures to house homeland security functions, reduces the risk of attacks and assists agencies and communities in their response should a disaster occur. Updated security and response capacity provides greater protection, helping to minimize loss of life and facilitating continued performance of first responder personnel duties during an attack or national disaster. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for checking and complying with the EPCRA and CFATS regulations, as appropriate. Waste fuel and/or oil associated with the new facilities must be disposed of according to Federal and State regulations. Additionally, the above-ground fuel storage tanks for the emergency generators would be located within berms to limit runoff and infiltration should a spill or leak occur. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to locate containers with a capacity to store more than 100 gallons of hazardous substances of an explosive or fire prone nature at an acceptable separation distance from facilities or structures where people may congregate such as schools or hospitals. Grantees and subgrantees may use the HUD's guidance "Siting of HUD-Assisted Projects near Hazardous Facilities (HUD -1060-CPD, Sept. 1996), incorporated in this PEA by reference. The grantee or subgrantee will be responsible for meeting the "all appropriate inquiries" rule in 40 C.F.R. 312.10 before acquiring a new property. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for preparing, implementing, and regularly updating spill prevention and control plan for proposed projects when needed. The use, handling, storage and disposal will be disposed of according to Federal, State or Territory, and local regulations. 5.2.2.7.2.11. Minority and Low-income Populations The impacts on minority or low-income populations of proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites would be those associated with ground disturbance (e.g. localized air quality, stormwater pollution), traffic, and noise. However, these impacts would affect all populations and would not be disproportionally directed to minority or low-income populations. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2 which include practices to control these impacts. Some proposed new construction projects may involve the placement of facilities that may be of concern (e.g. hazardous materials storage sites) near minority or low-income populations. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for adequate planning and community outreach for these projects before they are submitted to FEMA. For projects of concern, FEMA will require evidence from grantees and subgrantees of community outreach efforts. The replacement or relocation of fire stations and other operation centers may result in the indirect effect of abandonment of a station or operation center that served an area with predominant low-income or minority populations. Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for adequate planning of these activities to ensure that service times and areas are not affected in a manner that results in a high disproportionate and adverse indirect impacts on these populations. For these proposed projects, FEMA will require evidence from grantees and subgrantees of community outreach efforts. With appropriate planning, community outreach, and implementation of the mitigation measures, these projects are not anticipated to have a significant impact on minority or low-income populations. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects having disproportionate high and adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income populations. 5.2.2.7.2.12. Historic Properties - Archaeology Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites would not have significant impact on archaeological resources if those sites have low probability for the presence of archaeological deposits or have been previously surveyed and found not to have archaeological deposits. Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that have moderate to high probability for the presence of archaeological deposits may have adverse effects on these resources. Geographical location and physical characteristics of the site dictate whether an undertaking will affect archaeological resources. If such activities are anticipated, Section 106 consultation is necessary to determine whether potential archaeological resources exist and whether they would be adversely affected by the proposed project. If the proposed project will have an adverse effect, FEMA must develop ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the archaeological resources in consultation with the SHPO/ THPO and other interested parties. If the proposed project does not have the potential to affect archaeological resources, then there is no significant impact to this resource and no further Section 106 review would be required. If the proposed project has the potential to affect archaeological resources, FEMA will initiate the Section 106 process. If the Section 106 process results in an MOA or other agreement to resolve adverse effects and that agreement is required in order to reduce the level of impacts below significance under NEPA, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.7.2.13. Historic Properties - Other Historic Properties Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites that do not affect historic properties would not have significant impacts on these resources. Some proposed new construction projects may adversely affect historic properties, such as through the placement of new facilities or structures within the APE of an identified historic property, including building, structures, sites, objects, and historic districts. If the proposed project does not have the potential to affect historic properties, then there is no significant impact to this resource and no further Section 106 review would be required. If the proposed project has the potential to affect historic properties, FEMA will initiate the Section 106 review process. If the Section 106 process results in an MOA or other agreement to resolve adverse effects and that agreement is required in order to reduce the level of impacts below significance under NEPA, a Tiered SEA will be required. 5.2.2.7.2.14. Infrastructure Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may have an adverse impact on infrastructure. New construction projects could result in long-term changes in traffic flow in the area near the site due to the ingress and egress of workers. However, these changes are not considered a significant impact as roadway construction and traffic flow patterns are completed according to FHWA and State DOT protocols. Construction activities may lead to a temporary increase in solid waste generation, but this increase would be short-term and would not be expected to be significant. Proposed projects may increase demand on local utilities, such as electricity, sewer, and water service, but that increase is not expected to be significant. The construction of new facilities will enhance the protection of CI/KR at the local, State, Territory, Tribal, and national level, resulting in a beneficial impacts to infrastructure. 5.2.2.7.2.15. Air Quality Proposed new construction projects may have adverse impacts on air quality. Construction- related activities that could result in an adverse impact on air quality are generally associated with short-term emissions, principally from site clearing activities and the use of construction equipment and vehicles. Fugitive dust and air pollutants associated with the operation of construction equipment may affect air quality conditions at the project site. Off-road engines used in construction-related vehicles such as backhoes, front end loaders, bulldozers, tractors, graders, excavators, etc. are typically diesel-based that produce nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. (USEPA 2003). In FEMA's experience, the air emissions associated with individual site preparation and construction activities in sites less than five (5) acres do not rise to the level of significance even in non-attainment areas. Table 5-3 and Appendix C show, for example, an estimate made by the agency on the air emissions associated with equipment used for site preparation and construction activities for the placement of alternative housing units in the Gulf Coast of the U.S. (FEMA 2009). These estimates were based on US EPA's NONROAD Model (USEPA 2005). FEMA does not expect that the construction or demolition activities would result in a violation of the GCR or require a PSD permit. Operation of the new facilities would not have significant impact on the local or regional air quality. In general, operation of new or replaced facilities would not result in a new major source and does not result in a violation of the GCR or cause PSD deterioration. Land disturbance associated with this activity is expected to be less than five (5) acres. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2. Projects that implement these measures will not result in significant impacts to air quality. FEMA will require a Tiered SEA for projects that would result in more than five (5) acres of ground disturbance or do not implement applicable measures in Section 7.2. Older structures often contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos. Any activities associated with the demolition of facilities must be done in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous materials. 5.2.2.7.2.16. Noise Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may have noise-related adverse impacts. Table 5-4 shows an estimate of the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment and attenuation of noise at various distances. The estimates provided in Table 5-4 indicate that most of the equipment commonly associated with construction activities produces noise levels that exceed 75 dBA. A distance of 200 feet or more is needed between most of the construction equipment provided and a receptor to attenuate the noise levels those that are acceptable. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2, which includes operation of equipment during business hours (Monday through Friday from 7am to 5pm) and the use of manufacturers' standard noise control devices (e.g. mufflers, baffling, engine enclosures). In addition, grantees and subgrantees will be required to comply with any State, Territory, Tribal or local noise control requirements. With these measures the activity would not result in significant impacts from noise. FEMA will document those actions that would result in noise levels exceeding 70 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time and will take place less than 200 feet from sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, hospitals, and residential areas) through either a Tiered SEA. 5.2.2.7.2.17. Visual Quality Proposed new construction projects on undeveloped or undisturbed sites may have adverse aesthetic impacts, both short-term during the construction period and long-term during operation of the new facility. Short-term impacts would be expected due to the presence of heavy equipment, the presence of debris and construction materials, and the disruption of the site during construction. However, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to implement the general mitigation measures for ground disturbance activities in Section 7.2, which would limit these impacts. Long-term aesthetic impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project. FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to take prudent measures, such as maintaining existing stands of trees and revegetating with native plants where possible, to minimize long-term impacts. 5.2.2.7.2.18. Climate Change Proposed new construction projects on previously undisturbed sites would not have a significant impact on climate change. Increased emissions from construction activities would be of short duration and a limited scale. While land use would be altered at the site and there would be an increase in energy usage to provide power to the facility, the scale at which these changes would occur would not be significant due to the typical nature of the types of projects that GPD funds. Section Six Cumulative Impacts The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts as the "impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non- Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time" (40 CFR 1508.7). 6.1 Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, cumulative impacts would result in persistent vulnerabilities and the continued compromised ability of first responders as well as local, State, Territory, and National governments to prepare for and respond to national security emergencies. 6.2 Alternative 2: Program Implementation 6.2.1 Programs Implementation of GPD programs would result in beneficial cumulative impacts on human health and safety. Financial assistance being provided by GPD to State, Territory, local, and Tribal governments and private-sector and non-governmental first responders may be used to implement projects throughout the United States, its six territories, and two Pacific island countries (FSM and RMI). This assistance is provided to enhance the capabilities of grantees and subgrantees to prevent and respond to national emergencies, including acts of terrorism. The cumulative effect of the enhanced capability resulting from the grant programs coupled with existing and on-going security activities will greatly elevate the level of local, State, and national security within the United States, its six territories, FSM, and RMI. These cumulative beneficial impacts on the human health and safety/security of our country are associated with: * Increase in staff of affected governmental agencies * Accelerated training of existing and new personnel * Purchase of new and/or improved security and communication equipment * Improvement of communication of first responders within and between all levels (Federal, State, and local) of governmental agencies * Improved security at major public gathering areas * Improved safety of security and law enforcement personnel * Expanded medical resources (facilities, equipment, and supplies) for responding to emergency conditions that could have large numbers of victims. 6.2.2 Projects FEMA's experience with similar types of projects addressed in this PEA is that they would have minimal adverse cumulative impacts given the relatively small amount of land that will be physically affected by the proposed projects. However, project-specific information will be needed for the following projects to appropriately take into consideration the potential for cumulative impacts: * Modification of existing structures and facilities, * New construction. FEMA will take cumulative impacts into account when evaluating whether the particular action fits within this PEA. Cumulative impacts may warrant preparation of a Tiered SEA. The impacts of construction activities on climate change deserve further discussion given the potential for nationwide cumulative impacts. 6.2.2.1 Construction Actions and Climate Change A recent study by the EPA indicates that the construction sector, which is engaged in the preparation of land and the construction, alteration, and repair of facilities and structures, is a substantial contributor of the nation's GHG emissions. The study established that the construction industry produces approximately 1.7% of the total GHG emissions in the U.S. and roughly 6% of the U.S. industrial-related GHG emissions (EPA 2009). The reason for this proportion is due to the sheer number of construction activities occurring in the U.S. simultaneously. The number of GPD-funded construction-related projects in a given year is expected to be limited. The majority of GPD funds are used for planning activities, management and administration activities, purchase of portable or mobile equipment, training, and exercises. However, FEMA will require grantees and subgrantess to observe the following practices to reduce the amount of potential GHG emissions in the construction related activities associated with facilities modifications and new construction: * Reduce construction equipment idling to the maximum extent practicable; * Ensure adequate maintenance of equipment, including proper engine maintenance, adequate tire inflation, and proper maintenance of pollution control devices; * To the extent possible, adopt other feasible measures under the EPA guidance Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector. Section Seven Mitigation FEMA will require grantees and subgrantees to follow the mitigation measures in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 to the extent practicable and applicable to avoid or minimize impacts to the quality of the human environment. These mitigation measures are not required to reduce impacts below the level of significance, thereby avoiding the need to develop an EIS; rather these general measures are required by FEMA to further minimize the impacts of those actions for which impacts are already below the level of significance. If grantees or subgrantees cannot avoid or minimize the impacts, a Tiered SEA may be required. The general mitigation measures outlined in this section may be superseded by higher or more stringent standards required by the particular Federal, State or Territory, Tribe, or local government agency issuing a permit, license, or approval for the project. Additional project-specific mitigation measures may be imposed as a condition of project approval/grant award by FEMA for those projects covered by a CATEX that trigger extraordinary circumstances or those projects for which a Tiered SEA will be prepared. 7.1 Measures to avoid impacts to the human environment 1. Avoid taking actions that modify existing land use patterns; 2. Avoid undertaking projects in areas characterized by susceptibility to seismic or volcanic activity, tsunamis, landslides, mudslides, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes; 3. Avoid undertaking projects in the floodplain; 4. Avoid undertaking projects on important farmlands; 5. Avoid undertaking projects on or near Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs); 6. Avoid undertaking projects in wetlands; 7. Avoid undertaking projects that adversely affect historic properties, including archaeological resources; 8. Avoid undertaking projects that adversely affect threatened and endangered or special status species or critical habitat. 7.2 Minimization Measures for ground disturbing/ construction activities of up to five (5) acres 1. Follow applicable State, Territory, Tribal, and local permitting requirements for construction; 2. Water down construction site two to three times per day if dust emissions become a problem; 3. Enclose or water down exposed dirt storage piles; 4. Minimize the disturbed area and preserve vegetation to the maximum extent possible; 5. Maintain topsoil whenever possible; 6. Phase construction activities to the extent possible; 7. Control stormwater flowing to and through the project site; 8. Protect slopes by using measures such as erosion control blankets, bonded fiber matrices, turf reinforcement mats, silt fences (for moderate slopes), etc.; 9. Temporarily protect storm drain inlets until site is stabilized; 10. Retain sediment on-site and control dewatering practices by using sediment traps or basins for large areas (> 1 acre) when appropriate; 11. Establish stabilized construction entrances/exits (e.g. large crushed rocks, stone pads, steel wash racks, hose-down systems, pads); 12. Limit construction activities, including operation of heavy machinery, to normal business hours (M-F 7am-5pm); 13. Avoid engaging in construction activities within 200 feet of noise-sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, residential areas, nursing homes, etc. 14. Ensure adequate maintenance of equipment, including proper engine maintenance, adequate tire inflation, and proper maintenance of pollution control devices; 15. Ensure equipment at the project site uses the manufacturer's standard noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, baffling, and/or engine enclosures); 16. Reduce construction equipment idling to the maximum extent practicable; 17. Implement plans to eliminate and minimize oil or fuel spills from construction equipment; 18. Minimize the impacts of equipment staging areas; 19. Stabilize slopes promptly through temporary and permanent cover best management practices (BMPs). Following construction all remaining disturbed areas must be revegetated with locally acquired sources of native seeds and plants in a manner that returns the site to its pre-construction condition or better. Plantings are done during the optimum season for the species being planted. Any seeding carried out during the revegetation program is completed with commercially available seeds certified to be free of noxious weed seeds and other invasive species. If necessary, an irrigation system is installed to ensure establishment of the planted vegetation. The target for new plantings is an 80 percent survival rate at the end of 3 years. Invasive exotic plant species are controlled to the maximum extent practical to accomplish the revegetation effort. If the application of a chemical is required to control an invasive exotic plant species, the chemical is applied by a certified pesticide or herbicide applicator per labeled directions and in compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. 20. When applicable adopt measures to minimize traffic impacts during construction such as providing warning signage, limit the use of public right-of-ways for staging of equipment or materials, use of flagpersons when needed, and coordinate detours if traffic access points will be obstructed. 21. Avoid engaging in construction activities within 660 feet of a bald or golden eagle nest during nesting and fledging, as nesting eagles are quite sensitive to human activities during these times. 22. Establish an inspection and maintenance approach to ensure these measures are working adequately. 23. To the extent possible, adopt other feasible measures under the EPA Guidance Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector. 24. Avoid archaeological sites by shifting ground disturbance in a particular area, when possible. Section Eight Documents Incorporated by Reference U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 1996. Siting of HUD-Assisted Projects near Hazardous Facilities (HUD -1060-CPD). September 1996. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/training/guidebooks/hazfacilities/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. The Bald Eagle: Other Protection following Delisting under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/FactSheetJan1806.pdf. USFWS 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGui delines.pdf. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2007. Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Construction Sites. http://www.rpi.edu/~kilduff/Stormwater/EPA%20swppp%20guide.pdf USEPA 2009. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/construction-sector-report.pdf Navy 2008. Final Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training EIS/OEIS. December 2008. http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs.aspx NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) 2000. Recommended Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. March 2000. http://www.bssconline.org/NEHRP2000/comments/provisions/front.pdf NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2008. Biological Opinion for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document - Puget Sound Region, September 2008. NPS (National Park Service) 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 1990, revised 1992, 1998. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/. Glossary of Terms Supporting facilities - Subsidiary or auxiliary buildings, equipment, infrastructure, or services such as roads, utilities, storage buildings, fuel tanks, generators, etc. that support the successful operation of a parent facility. Ground disturbance - any work or activity that results in a disturbance of the earth, including excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, backfilling, blasting, topsoil stripping, land leveling, peat removing, quarrying, clearing and grating Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Effective, practical, structural or nonstructural methods, schedules of activities, or prohibitions of practices which prevent or reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants from the land to surface or ground water, or which otherwise protect water quality. Critical Infrastructure - Assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, that are so vital to a population that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on public health or safety, national security, economic vitality, or a combination of these. Critical infrastructure includes facilities that are especially important during and after a natural or man- made hazard event, including but not limited to, hospitals, fire and police stations, shelters, and facilities that store important records. Key resources - Publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government. Historic property - Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource. Historic properties are significant at the national, tribal, regional, state, territory, or local level in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Infrastructure - Those systems necessary to provide electric power, natural gas, water, and wastewater services. Modification - Changes to an existing building or structure resulting from the addition or removal of architectural elements, equipment, utilities, etc. New construction - The preparation of previously disturbed or undisturbed land and the building or assembly of new buildings, structures, infrastructure and other real property on that land. The preparation of land includes removal of vegetation; site clearing, grading, and grubbing; excavation, etc. This definition does not include activities prior to construction, such as design, siting of buildings, or specification of materials, nor does it include the operation of a facility following construction. Physical security enhancements and access controls - Equipment or devices installed at existing facilities to improve security and restrict access of unauthorized personnel. Examples include lighting, jersey barriers, vehicle bollards, fencing, gates, tire puncture treadles, surveillance cameras. Retrofitting - Making changes to an existing building, structure or utility system to protect it against a natural or man-made hazard, such as an earthquake or explosion. References California Department of Transportation (CDOT) 1998. Technical Noise Supplement by the California Department of Transportation Environmental Program Environmental Engineering - Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. October 1998, pp. 24-28. CEQ (President's Council on Environmental Quality) 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. December 1997. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2009. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Alternative Housing Pilot Program's Permanent Housing in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. March 2009. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook, August 2006. FHWA-HEP-06-015, DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02, NTIS No. PB2006- 109102. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/handbook/index.htm. HUD (US Housing and Urban Development) 2009. The Noise Guidebook. Available at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/training/guidebooks/noise/index.cfm. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S. D.Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)] NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) 2000. Recommended Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. March 1. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2008. Biological Opinion for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document - Puget Sound Region, September 2008. NMFS, 2009a. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/ NMFS, 2009b. Marine Mammals. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/ NPS (National Park Service), 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 1990, revised 1992, 1998. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/. Accessed 8 January 2009. Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao 2007. Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon, S.D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 747-846. Reynolds, J.R. 2008. Submarines, sonar, and the death of whales: Enforcing the delicate balance of environmental compliance and national security in military training. Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 32:759-802. USCB (United States Census Bureau) 2008. Poverty Thresholds for 2007 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years. 2008. Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html. Accessed 8 January 2009. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1980. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals. EPA 550/9-80-100. TIC 242667. December 1980. USEPA 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42), 5th edition, United Stated Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor. January. USEPA 2007. Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Construction Sites. http://www.rpi.edu/~kilduff/Stormwater/EPA%20swppp%20guide.pdf USEPA. 2008a. Air and Radiation Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html USEPA 2008b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-08-005. April. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. USEPA 2009. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/construction-sector-report.pdf USFWS 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGui delines.pdf. Salmon, M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and sea turtles. Biologist 50(4) pp. 163-168. Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). 2004. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. November 15. WRI (World Resources Institute). 2008. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 5.0. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. http://cait.wri.org. List of Preparers FEMA Jomar Maldonado, Environmental Officer Laura Shick, Environmental Program Specialist Adria Martínez, Program Manager Booz Allen Hamilton John Thomas Fitch, Senior Environmental Manager William McGovern, Senior Environmental Specialist Amanda Pereira, Environmental Specialist Emily Lux, Environmental Specialist List of Appendices Appendix A Description of GPD Grant Programs State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) Purpose: This core assistance program provides funds to build capabilities at the state and local levels and to implement the goals and objectives included in state homeland security strategies and initiatives in the State Preparedness Report. Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Program Purpose: The UASI program focuses on enhancing regional preparedness in major metropolitan areas. The UASI program directly supports the National Priority on expanding regional collaboration in the National Preparedness Guidelines and is intended to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response and recovery. Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) Program Purpose: The MMRS program supports the integration of emergency management, health, and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass casualty incidents caused by any hazard. Successful MMRS grantees reduce the consequences of a mass casualty incident during the initial period of a response by having augmented existing local operational response systems before the incident occurs. Citizen Corps Program (CCP) Purpose: The Citizen Corps mission is to bring community and government leaders together to coordinate community involvement in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation, response and recovery. State Homeland Security Program Tribal (SHSP Tribal) Purpose: To provide supplemental funding to directly eligible tribes to help strengthen the nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. Pursuant to the 9/11 Act, "a directly eligible tribe applying for a grant under section 2004 [SHSP] shall designate an individual to serve as a tribal liaison with [DHS] and other federal, state, local, and regional government officials concerning preventing, preparing for, protecting against and responding to acts of terrorism." Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) Purpose: NSGP provides funding support for target-hardening activities to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of a terrorist attack and are located within one of the specific UASI-eligible urban areas. Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) Purpose: The intent of OPSG is to enhance cooperation and coordination among local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to secure the United States borders along routes of ingress from international borders to include travel corridors in States bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as states and territories with international water borders. Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) Purpose: The TSGP provides grant funding to the nation's key high-threat urban areas to enhance security measures for their critical transit infrastructure including bus, ferry and rail systems. Freight Rail Security Grant Program (FRSGP) Purpose: The FRSGP funds security training for frontline employees, the completion of vulnerability assessments, the development of security plans within the freight rail industry and GPS tracking systems for railroad cars transporting toxic inhalation materials (TIH). Intercity Passenger Rail (Amtrak) Purpose: The purpose of the Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) is to create a sustainable, risk-based effort to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism, major disasters and other emergencies within the Amtrak rail system. Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) Purpose: The PSGP provides grant funding to port areas for the protection of critical port infrastructure from terrorism. PSGP funds are primarily intended to assist ports in enhancing maritime domain awareness, enhancing risk management capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from attacks involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs), weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and other non-conventional weapons, as well as training and exercises and Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) implementation. Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) Purpose: The IBSGP provides funding to create a sustainable program for the protection of intercity bus systems and the traveling public from terrorism. The program seeks to assist operators of fixed-route intercity and charter bus services in obtaining the resources required to support security measures such as enhanced planning, facility security upgrades and vehicle and driver protection. Trucking Security Program (TSP) Purpose: TSP funding will be awarded to eligible applicants to implement security improvement measures and policies deemed valuable by DHS as indicated in the Security Action Items publication of June 26, 2008. These items are primarily focused on the purchase and installation or enhancement of equipment and systems related to tractor and trailer tracking systems. Additionally, the TSP will provide funding to develop a system for DHS to monitor, collect and analyze tracking information; and develop plans to improve the effectiveness of transportation and distribution of supplies and commodities during catastrophic events. Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) Purpose: The BZPP provides funding to increase the preparedness capabilities of jurisdictions responsible for the safety and security of communities surrounding high-priority pre-designated Tier 1 and Tier 2 critical infrastructure and key resource (CIKR) assets, including chemical facilities, financial institutions, nuclear and electric power plants, dams, stadiums and other high- risk/high-consequence facilities, through allowable planning and equipment acquisition. Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) Purpose: The purpose of the EMPG program is to assist state and local governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities. Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) Purpose: IECGP provides governance, planning, training and exercise and equipment funding to states, territories, and local and tribal governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency communications, including communications in collective response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters. According to the legislation that created IECGP, all proposed activities must be integral to interoperable emergency communications and must be aligned with the goals, objectives and initiatives identified in the grantee's approved statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIP). IECGP will also advance DHS near-term priorities that are deemed critical to improving interoperable emergency communications and are consistent with goals and objectives of the National Emergency Communications Plan. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program Purpose: The EOC grant program is intended to improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure, and interoperable Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) with a focus on addressing identified deficiencies and needs. This program provides funding for construction or renovation of a state, local, or tribal governments' principal EOC. Fully capable emergency operations facilities at the state and local levels are an essential element of a comprehensive national emergency management system and are necessary to ensure continuity of operations and continuity of government in major disasters caused by any hazard. Driver's License Security Grant Program Purpose: The purpose of the Driver's License Security Grant Program is to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that States and territories issue. Appendix B FEMA CATEXs and Applicability to GPD-Funded Actions Projects funded under the various homeland security and emergency preparedness grant programs administered by FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) that were awarded in Fiscal Year 2007 and later shall be reviewed under FEMA's environmental procedures at 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10. This guidance is intended to help ensure the consistent application of 44 CFR Part 10.8 Categorical Exclusions (CATEXs) to GPD-funded projects. Although a Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may apply to a GPD-funded project, the project must still be reviewed for compliance with other environmental and historic preservation laws, Presidential executive orders, and regulations. In order to qualify as a CATEX, the project must fit entirely within the parameters of the CATEX and extraordinary circumstances must not be present or must be mitigated below the level requiring an Environmental Assessment. A project may fit under more than one CATEX; for example, the purchase of security cameras may fall under CATEX VI, and the installation of those cameras inside an existing Emergency Operations Center may fall under CATEX XVII. (v) Training activities and both training and operational exercises utilizing existing facilities in accordance with established procedures and land use designations CATEX V covers classroom and web-based training. It may also cover field exercises related to homeland security and emergency preparedness, such mock emergency response scenarios involving mass casualties, mass evacuations, and terrorist attacks, and TOPOFF, tabletop, and continuity of operations exercises, etc. (vi) Procurement of goods and services for support of day-to-day and emergency operational activities, and the temporary storage of goods other than hazardous materials, so long as storage occurs on previously disturbed land or in existing facilities CATEX VI may cover, but is not limited to, the use of grant funds to purchase the following types of equipment: o Vehicles o Boats o ID cards o Hand-held or portable equipment (e.g. radios, cell phones, GPS units, scuba dive gear, personal protective equipment (vests, masks, etc.), computers, televisions, etc.) o Navigation, communication, or detection equipment (including sonar) to be installed on boats, vehicles, or other mobile units (ix) Acquisition, installation, or operation of utility and communication systems that use existing distribution systems or facilities, or currently used infrastructure rights-of-way CATEX IX may cover, but is not limited to, the following projects and activities. o Construction of communication towers o Addition of antennas/dishes to existing towers o Structural extensions of existing towers to support additional equipment o Laying of cable, electric lines, telephone lines, etc., including necessary trenching o Installation of surveillance cameras, including poles necessary to mount the cameras o Installation of lighting, including poles necessary to mount the lights Any ground disturbance must take place on previously disturbed ground. Any communication tower projects should follow the US Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines on the siting, construction and operation of communications towers to the maximum extent possible. Deviations from the guidelines will require justification to fully evaluate potential extraordinary circumstances. (xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrofitting, upgrading to current codes and standards, or replacement of any facility in a manner that substantially conforms to the pre-existing design, function, and location CATEX XV may cover the repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrofitting, upgrading to current codes and standards, or replacement of a variety of facilities including but not limited to those listed under CATEX XVI below. (xvi) Improvements to existing facilities and the construction of small scale hazard mitigation measures in existing developed areas with substantially completed infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when those actions do not alter basic functions, do not exceed capacity of other system components, or modify intended land use; provided the operation of the completed project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human environment CATEX XVI may cover the installation outdoors of a variety of physical security enhancements to improve security at and/or restrict access to existing facilities, including but not limited to: o Fencing o Lighting o Gates o Bollards o Tire puncture treadles o Jersey barriers o Sonar (fixed position, i.e. mounted on poles, docks, etc.) o Generators o Security guard buildings o Equipment buildings (xvii) Actions conducted within enclosed facilities where all airborne emissions, waterborne effluent, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, and solid and bulk waste disposal practices comply with existing Federal, Federal, state, and local laws and regulations CATEX XVII may cover the installation of a variety of types of equipment and/or physical security devices inside existing buildings, including but not limited to: o ID card reader machines o Biometric devices o X-ray machines o Generators o Impact/blast-resistant doors, gates, and windows o Motion detection systems o Surveillance cameras o CCTV o Detection systems for explosives or biological or chemical substances o Lighting o Generators Appendix C Construction and Air Quality Impacts Appendix D Scope of EHP Review of GPD-Funded Actions A. Introduction FEMA will use the following guidelines to determine the appropriate scope of FEMA's environmental planning and historic preservation (EHP) review of actions funded by FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). These guidelines are based on the Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 40 CFR 1508.25 for projects triggering an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). FEMA believes that the same principles can be extended for determining the scope of NEPA review for projects subject to FEMA Categorical Exclusions (CATEXs), Environmental Assessments (EAs), and this Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA), and may also be used in determining the scope of FEMA's review under other EHP review requirements. Using 40 CFR 1508.25 as a reference, the scope of the EHP analysis should include actions connected to the FEMA action (i.e. the GPD grant-funded project) with the exception of the unique situations addressed in Sections B and C below. Connected actions are those that: o Are automatically triggered by FEMA's action; or o Automatically trigger a FEMA action; or o Cannot or will not proceed unless the FEMA action is taken previously or simultaneously; or o Will not allow the FEMA action to proceed unless it is taken previously or simultaneously; or o Are interdependent parts of a larger FEMA action and are dependent on the larger FEMA action for its justification; or o Are larger actions in which the FEMA action is an interdependent component and justify the particular FEMA action. B. Federalization The use of GPD grant funds for a portion or component of a larger project may have the effect of subjecting the full project to the Federal EHP review. This is called "Federalization" of the project for EHP review purposes. However, even if FEMA funds are involved, Federalization may not always occur. FEMA will limit the scope of EHP review just to the small portion or component that is the target of its discretionary grant assistance when the following conditions are met: o FEMA's contribution is relatively small compared to the State, Territory, Tribal, local, or private contribution to the full project; o FEMA's contribution does not provide the agency with sufficient control or influence over the design and implementation of the full project; and o The full State, Territory, Tribal, local, or private project will very likely be carried out regardless of FEMA's contribution to the small portion or component of interest. C. Segmentation Segmentation occurs when a Federal agency improperly divides an action into multiple components to avoid conducting the EHP review on the entire action or group of connected actions and more specifically, in the NEPA context, to avoid a finding of significant impact on the human environment. Typically segmentation occurs when a Federal agency treats connected actions within its own purview as separate components and conducts independent EHP review on each. In some instances, however, agencies can properly divide what appear to be connected actions and conduct independent EHP reviews. For GPD-funded projects, FEMA may divide seemingly connected actions and conduct separate EHP reviews on each of those actions if: o The actions do not share the same funding source; and o The actions will occur at different times; and o Each component has independent utility. All of these conditions must be met in order for FEMA to appropriately evaluate seemingly connected actions independently. A method that is widely used across the Federal government and the courts to evaluate connectivity of actions for NEPA purposes is the "independent utility" test. A project has independent utility if it can be considered a stand-alone project, i.e. it on its own serves a distinct purpose or function assuming no other project is contemplated or implemented in the project area. It is FEMA's position that actions should be evaluated together if they are likely to occur simultaneously or if they share the same funding source (e.g. same grant program), even if each component has independent utility, to ensure a more efficient EHP review process. Even when FEMA is conducting independent EHP reviews of actions that have independent utility, the agency will always take into account the potential cumulative impacts to determine if any of the actions would have a significant impact on the human environment. Another concern is the scope of EHP review when more than one Federal agency is involved in the same project or is involved in actions that are directly related to each other because they are functionally interdependent. When this is the case and the action triggers an EIS, CEQ requires the Federal agencies to establish a lead agency pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5 and establish Cooperating Agencies pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 to avoid duplicative NEPA reviews. CEQ also encourages agencies to evaluate similar actions together when they are in close geographic proximity or timing (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(3)). Although these requirements were developed for situations where the action triggers an EIS, FEMA believes that the principles of Federal-to- Federal agency coordination can be extended to CATEXs, EAs or other EHP review requirements to avoid the unnecessary duplication of EHP reviews and the appropriate consideration of cumulative impacts of all the foreseeable Federal actions. FEMA will utilize the same "independent utility" test above to determine if the multiple Federal actions could be evaluated together and will work closely with other Federal agencies that are potentially involved to ensure a coordinated EHP review process. Appendix E Adoption of Other (non-FEMA) EHP Reviews for a GPD-Funded Action A. Introduction In a few cases, environmental planning and historic preservation (EHP) analyses may have been conducted by another Federal, State or Territory, Tribal, or local agency for an action proposed for funding under one of FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) grant programs before the proposed action is submitted to FEMA for review. Several EHP review requirements (e.g. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), General Conformity under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), etc.) allow for the adoption of analyses conducted by other entities (Federal and State) but not for adoption of the findings made by those other entities. FEMA is legally responsible for its findings and decisions based on analyses conducted by other entities and therefore must conduct its own "independent review" of such analyses. FEMA will use the following guidelines for the adoption of other agencies' analyses when they exist. These guidelines establish FEMA's independent review process for EHP analyses that cover proposed GPD-funded actions. B. Adoption of other Federal EHP reviews FEMA will carry out the following steps to determine if adoption of another Federal agency's EHP analyses on the same action is appropriate: 1. Determine if the scope of the other Federal agency's EHP review adequately covers the action proposed for GPD funding. 2. Determine if the level of NEPA analysis conducted by the other Federal agency was appropriate or would have been the same level of analysis if FEMA had reviewed the proposed action. Currently, FEMA cannot adopt another agency's categorical exclusion determination (CATEX) or finding. Documentation prepared by another Federal agency that supports its CATEX determination may be used by FEMA to determine if the proposed action is covered by a FEMA CATEX or by this Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). 3. Determine if the appropriate level of public involvement was conducted. Although this is driven by the level of NEPA analysis, it is important to note that FEMA has high standards for public involvement for actions that require an Environmental Assessment (EA). 4. Determine if all other EHP requirements typically taken into account by FEMA were adequately addressed in the analysis performed by the other Federal agency. This includes determining whether those analyses or reviews adequately covered the scope of the proposed FEMA action and were legally sufficient. Examples include, but are not limited to, evaluating whether the Biological Assessment prepared under Section 7 of ESA (if one is needed) adequately addressed the proposed FEMA action and its impacts, whether the identification and evaluation and Area of Potential Effect (APE) was appropriate for FEMA's proposed action under Section 106, whether any resource agency consultation conducted appropriately covered FEMA's proposed action, whether Tribal governments were appropriately consulted when needed, and whether the agency conducted an adequate 8-step decision-making process for actions in or affecting floodplains or wetlands. FEMA may find a deficiency in any one of these evaluations. If deficiencies are identified, FEMA will notify the Grantee or Subgrantee and work with them to ensure all EHP requirements are met before making a final determination or finding. 5. Document through a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) or memorandum to the file FEMA's independent review and those elements of the other Federal agency's EHP analysis that FEMA will adopt. 6. Independently make any findings or determinations such as a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), no effect, not likely to adversely effect, etc. C. Adoption of State EHP reviews Approximately fifteen to eighteen States and Territories and a number of Tribal governments have their own environmental impact assessment legislation that functions similar to NEPA (commonly referred to as "little NEPA" statutes). Some are procedural; others are substantive and treat the requirement like a permit process. At present, these little NEPA statutes do not substitute for the Federal NEPA process. However, Federal agencies can use the information derived from the little NEPA process to determine the level of NEPA analysis needed or to make a finding of significance based on those analyses. If State, Tribes, and local governments wish for FEMA to consider the adoption of their little NEPA analyses, they must ensure that their documents include: o Purpose and Need o Alternatives o Environmental conditions o Environmental impact analysis including cumulative impacts o Mitigation (if any) o Public involvement o Coordination with other agencies, including resource agencies (e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Historic Preservation Office) It is important to note that FEMA integrates other Federal EHP review requirements into its NEPA analyses. Therefore, there will be situations where a State, Tribe, or local agency may have prepared a little NEPA analysis pursuant to its State or Tribal little NEPA statute, but the document may be deemed insufficient because it has not met, for example, the Section 7 consultation under ESA, Section 106 consultation under NHPA, or the Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management 8-step process, which are responsibilities of Federal agencies. Some States and Tribes may have equivalent statutes for the consideration of impacts on historic properties, floodplains, threatened and endangered species and critical habitat, environmental justice, cumulative impacts, important farmland, wetlands, air and water quality, coastal zones, etc. In these cases, FEMA may use the information prepared or analyses performed to make its own findings and determinations under the various EHP review requirements. FEMA will carry out the following steps to determine if adoption of EHP analyses carried out by a State, Territory, Tribal, or local agency (e.g. under a little NEPA statute) of the same action is appropriate: 1. Determine if the scope of the State or Tribe's EHP review adequately covers the action proposed for GPD funding 2. Determine if the level of NEPA analysis conducted at the State, Territory, or Tribal level was appropriate or would have been similar if FEMA had reviewed the proposed action. FEMA cannot adopt a State or Tribal agency's CATEX-equivalent determination or finding. Documentation prepared by a State or Tribal agency that supports their CATEX- equivalent determination may be used by FEMA to determine if the proposed action is covered by a FEMA CATEX or by this PEA. 3. Determine if the appropriate level of public involvement was conducted. It is important to note that FEMA has high standards for public involvement for actions that require an EA. 4. Determine if all other EHP requirements typically taken into account by FEMA were adequately addressed in the analysis performed by the State, Territory, or Tribal agency. This includes determining whether those analyses or reviews adequately covered the scope of the proposed FEMA action and were legally sufficient. Given that most of these requirements are a Federal responsibility, FEMA will likely still have to engage in these Federal EHP review requirement but may use some of the information provided by the Grantee or Subgrantee to expedite FEMA's EHP review process. 5. Document through a REC or memorandum to the file FEMA's independent review and those elements of the State, Territory, Tribal, or local government EHP analysis that FEMA will adopt. 6. Independently make any findings or determinations such as a FONSI, no effect, not likely to adversely effect, etc.