DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIRE STATION LaBelle-Fannett Volunteer Fire Department LaBelle, Texas FEMA-1791-DR-TX March 2009 FEMA U.S. Department of Homeland Security 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Authority 1.2 Project Location 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 3.0 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 No Action 3.2 Proposed Action 3.3 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS 4.1 Geology and Soils 4.2 Water Resources 4.2.1 Surface Water 4.2.2 Waters of the United States (U.S.) Including Wetlands 4.2.3 Floodplains 4.3 Biological Resources 4.3.1 Flora and Fauna 4.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.4 Air Quality 4.5 Transportation 4.6 Noise 4.7 Cultural Resources 4.8 Socioeconomic Resources 4.9 Environmental Justice 4.10 Safety 4.11 Hazardous Materials 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS 8.0 CONCLUSION 9.0 REFERENCES 10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS LIST OF FIGURES* FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP (this figure depicts the proposed fire station location on a aerial image) FIGURE 2 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (this figure depicts the proposed fire station location on a USGS Topographic Map) LIST OF APPENDICES* APPENDIX A SITE PLANS (includes a plan and profile view of the proposed fire station) APPENDIX B AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE (includes two coordination letters one from NRCS and another from SHPO) APPENDIX C FLOODPLAIN MAP (includes a Flood Insurance Rate Map) APPENDIX D SITE PHOTOS (includes four photos: Photo #1 View facing northeast looking at the proposed location accross FM 365, Photo #2 View facing north looking at the largest Chinese tallow tree on the property, Photo #3 View facing southwest from the top of the northeastern corner of the proposed location, Photo #4 Typical view of the dominant grasses on the proposed location) APPENDIX E PUBLIC NOTICE (includes the notice of availability which was published in the Hometown Press on March 11, 2009) *Please note - the figures and appendices are not included in the text version of this document, but a hard copy of the draft environmental assessment is available for review between March 11, 2009 to April 9, 2009 at the Beaumont Public Library located at 801 Pearl Street, Beaumont, Texas. LIST OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impacts NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality THC Texas Historical Commission TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VFD Volunteer Fire Department 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Authority On September 13, 2008, President Bush declared a major disaster as a result of damage due to Hurricane Ike (FEMA-1791-DR-TX). As a direct result of Hurricane Ike’s storm surge striking the community of LaBelle, severe flooding occurred which caused damages to several structures located in the town including the LaBelle-Fannett’s Volunteer Fire Department (VFD) Station, which was damaged beyond repair. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is considering funding a project for the relocation and construction of a new fire station for the LaBelle-Fannett VFD. In accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 93-288, as amended, and implementing regulations at 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 206, FEMA is required to review the environmental effects of the proposed action prior to making a funding decision. In accordance with 44 CFR, Part 10, FEMA has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to meet the requirements of Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The purpose of this EA is to analyze the alternatives and assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction of a structure to house the LaBelle- Fannett’s VFD Station. 1.2 Project Location The new site for the proposed fire station is located at 12911 FM 365 in LaBelle, Jefferson County, Texas. The 3.5-acre site is east of LaBelle Road and fronts 100 ft of FM 365 (see Figure 1). 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED LaBelle-Fannett’s VFD provides fire and rescue emergency response services to a population of approximately 7,000 people in an area encompassing approximately 230 square miles in central Jefferson County. As a direct result of flooding from Hurricane Ike, the LaBelle-Fannett’s VFD station located in the 3473rd block of Pine Tree Lodge Road in LaBelle, Texas was severely damaged beyond repair. The purpose of the proposed action is to relocate and construct a new fire station so that the LaBelle-Fannett VFD can return to its pre-disaster function and continue to provide effective emergency response services. The previous fire station sustained severe flood damage by both Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Rita. The previous fire station was located in the 100 year floodplain. The proposed new location would be located in an area outside of the base floodplain, have greater access to major streets and highways, and would allow the VFD to use the station for an emergency shelter during the next flooding event. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 No Action The No Action alternative would entail no construction of a new fire station for the LaBelle- Fannett’s VFD. Consequently, the citizens living within the LaBelle-Fannett’s VFD district would be without an adequate facility for which to provide sufficient emergency services. Currently, the volunteer fire department is using temporary facilities to store the equipment. 3.2 Proposed Action LaBelle-Fannett’s VFD has prepared and submitted an application for FEMA funding under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program being administered in response to FEMA-1791-DR-TX. The proposed action is to construct a new fire station so that the LaBelle-Fannett’s VFD station can be returned to its pre-disaster function. The proposed fire station would be located on a 3.5 acre tract with a complete facility including four apparatus bays capable of holding eight pieces of fire apparatus, administration offices, along with support areas such as a kitchen/dining area, exercise room, and toilet rooms with showers. In addition to the main building, other development would include a parking area. Construction of these facilities would consist of minor grading, construction of the building and parking areas, and installation of utilities (water, septic, electric, etc.). A copy of the proposed project site plans can be found in Appendix A. 3.3 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward Rebuilding on the original site was considered. The original site was located within a 100 year floodplain and therefore was not selected as a feasible alternative. It will not be carried forward for further analysis within this EA. The proposed new location would be located outside of the base floodplain, have greater access to major streets and highways, and would allow the VFD to use the station for an emergency shelter during the next flooding event. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS 4.1 Geology and Soils The proposed project is located in the southeastern part of Texas in the physiographic region known as the West Gulf Coastal Plain. The land surface in the region is a nearly flat depositional plain rising from sea level to about 35 feet. Jefferson County is drained by the Neches and Sabine Rivers and their tributaries, except for a small area in the southern part of the county which is drained by small streams flowing directly into Sabine Lake. Jefferson County has a warm, humid climate with precipitation averaging 60 inches annually (National Climate Data Center 2005). The Geologic Atlas of Texas, Beaumont Sheet, indicates the subject property is underlain by Quaternary-age deposits of the Beaumont Formation. Sediments of the Beaumont Formation consist mostly of clays and mud, with some sand and silt layers. These clays have low permeability, high water-holding capacity, poor drainage, and high shrink-swell potential. The maximum thickness of the Beaumont Formation in Jefferson County is approximately 100 feet (Aronow 1975). The soils on the site are mapped as LaBelle-Anahuac complex 0 to 1 percent slopes. The Anahuac series consists of poorly drained soils that generally form in loamy and clayey sediments. The parent material of these soils is loamy fluviomarine deposits of late Pleistocene age (USDA 1994). These soils are listed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as being hydric. The NRCS defines a hydric soil as a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper portion of the soil profile. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (P.L. 97-98, Sec. 1539-1549; 7 U.S. Code 4201, et seq.) was enacted to minimize the unnecessary conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses as a result of federal actions. The NRCS is responsible for protecting significant agricultural lands from irreversible conversions that result in the loss of an essential food or environmental resource. Prime farmland is characterized as land with the best physical and chemical characteristics for the production of food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. This land is either used for food or fiber crops or is available for those crops, but is not urban, built-up land, or water areas. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. The site is mapped as LaBelle-Anahuac and Anahuac soils which are classified as prime farmland. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would have no impacts on the soils or geology of the area. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Construction of a new fire station at the site would cause some disturbance soils as part of the site preparation work. Since the site is relatively flat, the grading needed at the site would be minor. Exposed soils could be subject to erosion, therefore, silt fence and/or other storm water runoff best management practices would be utilized during construction. In general, effects to geology and soils would be minor and temporary in nature. The proposed project does contain prime farmland. The site is mapped as Labelle-Anahuac complex and Anahuac complex which are both considered prime farmland. The site is previously disturbed and in close proximity to residential land use. The proposed project would convert 3.5 acres of prime farmland into nonagricultural land. This conversion would not reduce the support for farmland remaining in the area. In compliance with FPPA, the proposed conversion was scored using the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006). The combined rating for this site was 98. The FPPA states that sites with a rating less than 160 do not need any further consideration. A coordination letter from NRCS is included in Appendix B. 4.2 Water Resources 4.2.1 Surface Water There are no rivers, creeks or other defined drainages on the project site; however the property is bordered to the north by Gallier Canal and to the southwest by Lovell Lake (see Figure 2). Storm water leaves the site as sheet flow and drains to Lovell Lake. Lovell Lake flows into the Taylor Bayou which then drains into Big Hill Reservoir, and eventually flows into the Gulf of Mexico. There are no wild and scenic rivers, as designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, in the project area. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would not change the site drainage nor have an effect on the surface water quality of the area. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Potential impacts to surface waters associated with the construction of the proposed fire station include the potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction. Some vegetation clearing and minor grading would be needed as part of the site preparation work. During this period, storm water runoff could carry sediment offsite into receiving waters. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be prepared and erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented to minimize any detrimental effects to water quality during construction. Because the project would disturb more than one acre, a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) storm water permit would be required. This permit would require that a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is kept on the construction site and that all sediment control measures identified in this plan are maintained. Any effects to water quality associated with the construction of the new facility would be short term and minimized by use of best management practices. No long-term effects to water quality are expected as a result of the proposed project. 4.2.2 Waters of the United States (U.S.) Including Wetlands The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are identified as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. In addition, Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit is required from the USACE for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands and tidally influenced waters. Dependent on the scope and type of impacts to waters of the U.S., authorizations may be in one of three primary forms: general permit, a letter of permission, or a standard individual permit. A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map of the area was also conducted in order to identify the potential for wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. This review indicated that there were no potential wetland areas in proximity to the property (USFWS 2009). The site was visited on December 11, 2008 by a qualified wetland scientist and an examination of the site indicated that there were potential wetlands subject to Section 404 on the property. A number of wetland indicator plant species were identified during the field investigation. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would have no effect on wetlands or other waters of the U.S. and would not require a Section 404 permit. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: A formal wetland delineation would be required to determine the presence or absence of waters of the U.S. at the proposed project site. Once a determination is made, the nature of the impacts would be determined along with the extent of USACE permitting requirements. 4.2.3 Floodplains Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize development in the floodplain except when there are no practicable alternatives. According to the National Flood Insurance Program’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community-Panel Number 4803850270-C), the project site is designated as Zone X and is not located within the 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Since the fire station is considered a critical facility, it must be located above the 500-year floodplain. Please see Appendix C for the floodplain map. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would not result in impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Since the proposed project site is not located within a designated floodplain, construction of the proposed fire station would have no impact on the floodplain and does not require a review under Executive Order 11988. 4.3 Biological Resources 4.3.1 Flora and Fauna The project area is located in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes natural region of Texas, as depicted in Preserving Texas’ Natural Heritage (LBJ School of Public Affairs 1978). The prairies and marshes of the Texas Gulf Coast are among the richest grazing lands in the state. This region is also an excellent habitat for upland game and waterfowl and an important recreational hunting and fishing area (Hatch 1999). The faunal communities in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes natural region typically include coyote, ringtail, hog-nosed skunk, ocelot, and collared peccary. Smaller mammals include Mexican ground squirrel, Texas pocket mouse, northern pygmy mouse, and southern Plains woodrat. Birds of freshwater marshes, lakes, ponds, and rivers include reddish egret, white-faced ibis, black-billed whistling duck, white-fronted goose, and olivaceous cormorant. Reptiles and amphibians include eastern spadefoot toad, Gulf coast toad, American alligator, diamondback terrapin, spiny-tailed iguana, Texas horned lizard, Texas spotted whiptail, and indigo snake (USDA 2009). Due to the developed and highly disturbed nature of the project area there is little habitat for faunal communities within the project area. The vegetation on the proposed project site was found to be dominated by grasses consisting of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), silver bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoides), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), splitbeard bluestem (Andropogon ternarius), roemer threeawn (Aristida roemeriana), tanglehead (Heteropogon contortus), Texas wintergrass (Nassella leucotricha). Shrubs observed on the property fence line identified as gray-winterberry holly (Ilex verticillata) and prickly ash (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis). The only tree species observed on the property was the occurrence of seven medium Chinese tallows (Sapium sebiferum) that varied in sizes from 10-15 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Photographs of the vegetation observed on the proposed project site can be found in Appendix D. 4.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species As shown in Table 1, the USFWS lists three species in Jefferson County as being endangered (USFWS 2008). These species are the Atlantic Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s Ridely sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The USFWS lists three species as being threatened, the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides for the protection of all listed threatened and endangered species from take as defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is further defined by the USFWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by USFWS as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Table 1 Federal Listed Threatened/ Endangered Species in Jefferson County Species Status Comments Bald Eagle Delisted/Recovered migratory/ transient Species Green Sea Turtle Threatened no habitat present on site Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle Endangered no habitat present on site Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Endangered no habitat present on site Leatherback Sea Turtle Endangered no habitat present on site Loggerhead Sea Turtle Threatened no habitat present on site Piping Plover Threatened migratory/ transient Species Source: USFWS 2008 The following descriptions and status report for each species is based on information provided by the USFWS, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and the National Parks Service. Listed as threatened in 1995, the bald eagle is the second largest North American bird of prey with an average seven foot wingspan. Its white head and tail offset against its dark brown body and wings. They prefer fish but are opportunistic feeders. The range of the bald eagle includes all of the conterminous U. S, and Alaska and is especially common in areas with large expanses of aquatic habitat. Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle was delisted from the USFWS list of threatened and endangered species. The bird will still be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Both laws prohibit killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests, or eggs. Breeding occurs primarily in the eastern third of Texas, and wintering occurs wherever open water exists. Five threatened/endangered species of sea turtles are found in Gulf of Mexico and nest on Texas beaches. The three sea turtle species that were listed as endangered in 1970 are the Atlantic Hawksbill, the Kemp’s Ridley, and the leatherback sea turtle. The two sea turtle species that were listed as threatened in 1978 are the green sea turtle and the loggerhead sea turtle. These sea turtles range in size from 2 feet up to six feet in length and weight can range from 75 to over 1,000 pounds. The turtles are found in the Gulf of Mexico and during nesting season along the Texas coast. The turtle nesting season is from April 1 through October 15. Listed as threatened in 1985, the piping plover is a small, stocky, sandy-colored bird with orange legs resembling the sandpiper. The piping plover blends well into the pale background of open, sandy habitat on outer beaches where it feeds and nests. The piping plover migrates annually between its breeding and wintering grounds. The plover inhabits its breeding grounds from March to August and its wintering grounds from September to April. Alternative A - No Action: The No-Action alternative would have no effect on threatened and endangered species. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: The site visit conducted on December 11, 2008 did not indicate the presence of habitat suitable for the endangered or threatened species listed in Jefferson County. The vegetation on site was consistent with mixed upland communities in the gulf coastal prairies region. The single tree species observed at the site was the invasive Chinese tallow. Immediately adjacent to the property is a residential home to the east and a man-made canal to the north with a small industrial gravel pit to the southwest. As seen in Figure 2, the remaining adjacent lands are previously disturbed lots. See photos in Appendix D. The proposed project would have no effect on threatened and endangered species. 4.4 Air Quality The Clean Air Act requires that states adopt ambient air quality standards. The standards have been established in order to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six air pollutants. These pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to ten micrometers (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and lead. The EPA has designated specific areas as NAAQS attainment or non-attainment areas. Non-attainment areas are any areas that do not meet (or that contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the quality standard for a pollutant. Attainment areas are any areas that meet ambient air quality standards. According to the TCEQ, Jefferson County is part of the Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) non-attainment region which is currently classified as moderate for the 8-hour ground level ozone standard. The deadline set for achieving attainment for 8-hour ground level ozone levels has been set June 15, 2010 (TCEQ 2009). Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would have no effect on air quality. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Pollutant emissions from construction equipment may result in minor temporary effects to air quality in the area immediately surrounding the proposed construction activity. Vehicular exhaust emissions would be produced by the operation of diesel engines and other construction equipment. These effects would be localized and of short duration. 4.5 Transportation The proposed project site is located at 12911 FM 365, east of IH-10 in Labelle, Texas. The 3.5 acre rectangular site is located east of LaBelle Road and fronts 100 ft of FM 365. FM 365 is a rural two lane highway that runs in an east/west direction connecting LaBelle to Port Neches. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would have no effect on transportation in the area. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Construction of the proposed fire station at the proposed location may have a small effect on transportation by increasing the number of vehicles on FM 365. The increase would be expected to be minor and would be due to staff traveling to and from the fire station, and emergency response vehicles leaving and arriving the fire station. TxDOT would install traffic safety devices consisting of either flashing advanced warning signs or a flashing beacon that would be visible by cars approaching the proposed fire station in each direction. In addition the applicant will be required to obtain a permit from TxDOT to construct access driveway facilities on highway right-of-way and to comply with all of the requirements of that permit. 4.6 Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. The closest noise receivers to the proposed project site would be a few rural residences located just east of the site and a residential neighborhood northeast of the site along Ridgecrest Drive. Noise levels within and adjacent to the project area would increase during the proposed construction activities as a result of construction equipment and vehicular traffic. The noise levels generated would be limited to workday daylight hours for the duration of the construction work. There are no local noise ordinances that would apply to the proposed project. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would not result in impacts to noise receivers in the area. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Construction of the proposed fire station would result in a slight increase in noise during the construction of the facility. The increase in noise is expected to be minor and would not affect any sensitive noise receivers. During operation of the facility, sirens operated by emergency response vehicles could have minor impacts to adjacent property residents depending on the frequency and timing of emergency responses. 4.7 Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended requires federal agencies “to take into account” the “effect” that an undertaking would have on “historic properties”. Historic properties are those included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and may include archeological sites, buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts. In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Places regulations pertaining to the protection of historic properties (36 CFR 800.4), federal agencies are required to identify and evaluate historic-age resources for NRHP eligibility and assess the effects that the undertaking would have on historic properties. A search of the Texas Historic Sites Atlas found no listings of National Register properties on or adjacent to the project site. A search of the NRHP Register for Places, Districts, and Historical Markers, found no listings within a half-mile of the project site. Coordination with the Texas Historical Commission was initiated to provide information regarding potential archeological properties and National Register eligibility. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would have no effect on cultural resources in the area. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: The Texas Historical Commission was contacted by letter regarding the potential for archeological or historic resources to be impacted by the proposed project. According to the THC, construction of the new facility at the proposed location would not affect any known archeological or historic resources in the area (letter attached in Appendix B). Should any historic or archaeological materials be discovered during construction, all activities on the site would be halted immediately and the contractor and/or Labelle-Fannett VFD would contact the THC for further guidance. 4.8 Socioeconomic Resources The proposed new facility is located in Labelle, Texas which is in Census Tract 113.01. In 1999, Census Tract 113.01 had a population of 9,378 and Jefferson County had a population of 252,051 (USCB 2000). According to Fire Chief Charles Sonnier, the primary industries in LaBelle, Texas are agriculture, manufacturing, and construction (Labelle-Fannett VFD 2008). The median household income in Census Tract 113.01 is $47,255 and $34,706 in Jefferson County (USCB 2000). According to Census 2000, 81 percent of the population in Census Tract 113.01 is white; 21 percent is Hispanic or Latino; 16 percent black or African American; 1 percent Asian; 1 percent two or more races; and 1 percent some other race. In Jefferson County 57 percent of the population is white; 34 percent is black or African American 21 percent is Hispanic or Latino; 1 percent Asian; 1 percent two or more races; and 1 percent some other race (USCB 2000). Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative could have a negative effect on socioeconomic conditions in the area. Threats to life and health would occur as county emergency response operations are hindered by an inadequate emergency response facility, or lack thereof. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: The Labelle-Fannett VFD service area covers approximately 230 square miles and encompasses central Jefferson County and includes the community of Labelle. Construction of the proposed new fire station would provide the community within its service area the emergency response services necessary to protect and reduce the losses to life and property; promote the health, safety, and well being of the citizens of the community; and to reduce damage to the environment due to fires, hazardous materials, natural disasters, and other emergencies caused by acts of man and nature. This would allow Labelle-Fannett VFD to operate more efficiently and provide a higher level of service to the community. 4.9 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” mandates that federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs on minority and low-income populations. This Executive Order also tasks federal agencies with ensuring that public notifications regarding environmental issues are concise, understandable, and readily accessible. Socioeconomic and demographic data were studied to determine if a disproportionate number of minority or low-income persons have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposed project. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would not have disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: The Labelle-Fannett VFD service area covers approximately 230 square miles, encompasses central Jefferson County, and includes the community of Labelle. The proposed action is not expected to have adverse or disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. The benefits of a new fire station are expected to be proportional to all residents in Jefferson County. 4.10 Safety Safety and security issues that were considered in this environmental assessment include the health and safety of area residents, the public at-large, and the protection of personnel involved in activities related to the implementation of the proposed project. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative could have a negative effect on the general safety of the residents of Jefferson County. The lack of an adequate emergency response facility would hinder emergency response operations in the community of Labelle and the surrounding communities. The current fire station is completely destroyed as a result of Hurricane Ike and was located in the floodplain. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Construction of the new fire station would allow the Labelle-Fannett VFD to improve their emergency response operations. The proposed new location would be outside of the floodplain. Construction of the new facility would provide faster emergency response times to calls due to the proposed project’s improved access to major streets and highways. These operations are critical to the health and safety of residents throughout Labelle, Texas and the surrounding service area which is approximately 230 square miles in size and encompasses central Jefferson County. 4.11 Hazardous Materials Hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), are defined as “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may; (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or; (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.” Hazardous materials and wastes are regulated in Texas by a combination of federal laws and state laws. Federal regulations governing the assessment and disposal of hazardous wastes include RCRA, the RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Solid Waste Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. Visual observation of the project area did not reveal obvious existing or potential hazardous materials, substances, or conditions. No drums or other sources of potential hazardous materials were observed in the project area. According to the NFIP’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community- Panel Number 4803850270-C revised August 6, 2002), there is a pipeline located in the northern portion of the project site (see Appendix C). However, no indications of pipelines crossing the project site were noted during the field survey, furthermore neither the USGS topographic map (see Figure 2) nor the Texas Railroad Commission’s public GIS viewer depict a pipeline located on the project site. There is a power line that runs parallel to the site with overhead electrical transformers that could possibly contain polychlorinated biphenyls; however, the power line would not be disturbed by construction of the new facility. There is also a cable line running underneath the ground parallel to the property that would not be affected by construction activities associated this project. The following is a list of the federal and state databases reviewed for this project: EPA, National Priorities List, EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System List, EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System List, TCEQ Superfund Registry, TCEQ Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank List, and TCEQ Petroleum Storage Tank List. The databases were searched by zip code, county, and street name. No facilities or properties in the project area were listed on the databases reviewed. Alternative A – No Action: The No Action alternative would not disturb any hazardous materials or create any potential hazard to human health. Alternative B – Construct New Facility: Construction of the new fire station would not disturb any known hazardous materials or create any potential hazard to human health. If hazardous constituents are unexpectedly encountered in the project area during the proposed construction operations, appropriate measures for the proper assessment, remediation and management of the contamination would be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The contractor would take appropriate measures to prevent, minimize, and control the spill of hazardous materials in the construction staging area. 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of the action when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. According to LaBelle-Fannett’s Fire Chief, there are no known projects planned within the vicinity of the proposed project (LaBelle-Fannett VFD 2008). There are no other known projects that, when added to the planned apartment complex and the proposed new fire station, have a cumulative impact on the human environment. The construction of proposed fire station would have little or no cumulative impact on the surrounding community and environment. 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The public was invited to comment on the proposed action and the Draft Environmental Assessment. A legal notice was posted in the Hometown Press on March 11, 2009, and on FEMA’s website (http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments/ea-region6.shtm). Additionally, the Draft Environmental Assessment was made available for review for a period of 30 days at the Beaumont Public Library. A copy of the notice is attached in Appendix E. 7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS As part of the development of this Environmental Assessment federal and state resource protection agencies were contacted. Because the project would disturb more than one acre, a TCEQ TPDES storm water permit would be required. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, this project would require a formal wetland delineation. Depending on the results of this wetland delineation this project may require a Section 404 permit from the USACE. It is anticipated that no other permits or approvals would be needed from any of the other regulatory agencies; however, the following agencies have been contacted and asked to comment on the proposed project: -Texas Historical Commission -Natural Resources Conservation Service Agency response letters are attached in Appendix B. 8.0 CONCLUSION The findings of this Environmental Assessment conclude that the proposed construction of a new fire station for the Labelle-Fannett VFD would result in no significant environmental impacts to the human or natural environment; therefore, the proposed action meets the requirements of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be required. 9.0 REFERENCES Aronow, S., T.E. Brown, J.L. Brewton, D.H. Eargle, and V.E. Barnes. 1975. Beeville-Bay City Sheet. Geologic Atlas of Texas. Alexander Deussen Memorial Edition. Revised 1987. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2002. Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Jefferson County, Texas. National Flood Insurance Program, Panel Number 4803850270C. August 6, 2002. Hatch, S. L., J. L. Schuster and D. L. Drawe. 1999. Grasses of the Texas Gulf Prairies and Marshes. Texas A&M University Press. LaBelle-Fannett Volunteer Fire Department. 2008. Personal Communication with Fire Chief Charles Sonnier, December 13, 2008. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. 1978. Preserving Texas Natural Heritage. Natural Research Project Report No. 31, University of Texas at Austin. National Climatic Data Center. 2005. National Weather Service Forecast Office. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Atmosphere. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/climate/coop/KBPT.htm (viewed in December 9, 2008). Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2009. Texas Attainment Status by Region. www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/siptexas.html. (viewed in February 2009). U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. American FactFinder. Jefferson County, TX. http://factfinder.census.gov. (viewed in January 2009). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1994. Soil Survey of Jefferson County, TX. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Ecological Sub-regions of the United States. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/toc.html (viewed in January 2009). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map. 2009. Last Updated February 9, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Jefferson County Endangered Species List. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/ListSpecies.cfm (viewed in December 2008). 10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Government Contributors: Don Fairley, REM, Regional Environmental Officer, FEMA, Denton, Texas Linda Depa, REM, EHP Team Lead, FEMA, Beaumont, Texas Document Preparers: Project Manager Carlos Swonke, P.G., AECOM, Austin, Texas Principal Investigators Kate Turner, AECOM, Austin, Texas Tricia Bruck, AECOM, Austin, Texas