Draft Environmental Assessment Union County Judges Office Mattie Roberson Lane Bridge Construction FEMA-1861-DR-AR / PW 1877 Union County, Arkansas May 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………....................................1 1.1 Project Location…………………………………………………………............................1 1.2 Project Setting……………………………………………………………............................1 2.0 Purpose and Need…………………………………………………………....................................2 3.0 Alternatives……………………………………………………………………....................................3 3.1 Alternative 1: No Action……………...………………............................3 3.2 Alternative 2: Bridge Construction……….............................3 3.3 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed………..........................3 4.0 Affected Environment and Impacts……………………..................................4 4.1 Geology and Soils………………………………………………….……...........................4 4.2 Air Quality………………………………………………………….……..............................4 4.3 Water Resources…………………………………………………….……............................5 4.3.1 Water Quality…………………………….……………..........................5 4.3.2 Floodplain……………………………………………………..........................6 4.3.3 Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands……………..............9 4.4 Biological Resources…………………………………………………….........................10 4.4.1 Fish and Wildlife…………………………………………….....................10 4.4.2 Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat………..12 4.5 Cultural Resources………………………………………………………..........................13 4.6 Socioeconomic Resources………………………………………………........................13 4.6.1 Environmental Justice………………………………………...................13 4.6.2 Noise…………………………………………………………............................14 4.6.3 Public Health and Safety…………………………………….................15 4.7 Summary………………………………………………………………….................................16 4.8 Cumulative Impacts………………………………………………………..........................19 5.0 Agency Coordination……………………………………………………………...............................20 6.0 Public Involvement………………………………………………………………...............................21 7.0 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………...................................22 8.0 References…………………………………………………………………..……..................................23 9.0 List of Preparers…………………………………………………………………...............................24 Appendix Appendix A: Consultation Letters Appendix B: Site Maps Appendix C: Site Photographs List of Acronyms ADEQ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe CWA Clean Water Act DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act H&H Hydraulics and Hydrology HMP Hazard Mitigation Proposal MPIS Multiple Project Information Sheet NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act STAA Short Term Activity Authorization SWA Solid Waste Act SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1.0 Introduction On December 3, 2009, President Obama declared a major disaster as a result of damage due to severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, and flooding beginning October 29, 2009 to November 8, 2009 (FEMA-1861-DR-AR). During the incident period damage was incurred on Mattie Roberson Lane in Union County, Arkansas in the form of two corrugated metal pipes (CMPs) 72 inch diameter by 40-foot long being washed away as well as a section of pit run clay gravel used as road base material and the rip rap material protecting both ends of the CMPs. Union County has prepared and submitted an application (PA-06-AR-1861-PW-1877) for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding under the Public Assistance program being administered in response to FEMA-1861-DR-AR. Under Section 406(e) of the Stafford Act, FEMA is considering funding the repair of Mattie Roberson Lane at the site of the two damaged CMPs by the construction of a bridge, which will reinforce the road, prevent future washout and road damage, and deter future flood damage. Construction of a bridge in the project area is the method planned to alleviate future damage. Hazard Mitigation, Section 406 of the Stafford Act, is a funding source for cost-effective measures that would reduce or eliminate the threat of future similar damage to a facility damaged during a disaster. This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508), and FEMA’s regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR Part 10). FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the replacement of the Mattie Roberson Lane CMPs by a bridge. FEMA will use the findings in this EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 1.1 Project Location The project area is comprised of a section of Mattie Roberson Lane, approximately 1.25 miles south of the Mattie Roberson Lane and C. P. Taylor Intersection in Union County, Arkansas (latitude/longitude = 33.13852/-92.91835). See Project Location Map Appendix B. 1.2 Project Setting The project area is located in Union County within the floodplain of West Three Creeks. The floodplain is a large, forested region with naturally meandering streams. The culverts that are the subject of this document cross West Three Creeks, an intermittent stream. The surrounding area is sparsely populated and features no other clearly defining characteristics aside from some nearby homes found within 1 mile of the project location. 2.0 Purpose and Need The President’s Council on Environmental Quality has developed regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These federal regulations, set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, require an evaluation of alternatives and a discussion of the potential environment impacts of a proposed federal action, as part of the NEPA process. FEMA regulations for implementing NEPA are set forth in 44 CFR Subpart 10. This Environmental Assessment was prepared in accordance with FEMA’s regulations as required under NEPA. As part of this NEPA review, the requirements of other environmental laws and executive orders are addressed. A preliminary hydraulics and hydrology (H&H) study conducted by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) determined that further erosion and flood control issues would occur due to the natural flow of West Three Creeks. In order to prevent future damage, the H&H study has recommended a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) for a 50-foot. span bridge. The construction of said bridge is intended to be a long term solution to future loss to the road and allow a higher flow rate to reduce flooding within the creek floodplain. The H&H study and its recommendations can be found in Appendix A. The purpose and need for the project is to reduce the likelihood of future flood damage to the road and allow the rural community to maintain access to the area, as there are multiple residents. 3.0 Alternatives This section describes the alternatives that were considered in addressing the purpose and need stated in Section 2 above. Two alternatives were considered as potential solutions to the road failure due to overtopping and damage to culverts and surrounding material on West Three Creeks. Both alternatives are carried forward for further evaluation in this EA: The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2), which is the construction of a 50-foot span bridge over the creek in place of the CMPs. 3.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the flood affected area receiving damage would not be replaced or repaired in any way. Erosion would continue and eventually the road and CMPs would fail causing loss of access to homes and costly repairs. In addition, this scenario poses dangers to individuals required to cross West Three Creeks to reach their homes. Eventually, a permanent road closure would occur. 3.2 Alternative 2: Bridge Construction The county has proposed constructing a 50-foot span bridge across the current location of the two CMPs to allow the water of West Three Creeks to flow freely. The increased drainage capacity from the construction of the bridge will result in the county avoiding repeated repairs to this portion of Mattie Roberson Lane due to erosion and alleviate flood waters during heavy rainfall events. Mattie Roberson Lane has incurred flood damage previously at the same location proposed above. To mitigate this damage the county has replaced the CMPs, installed additional clay gravel material, and rip rap. The repeated failure of this repair method is the rationale for the placement of a bridge on location. 3.3 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed Previous attempts to alleviate the erosion of the proposed construction area due to flooding and overtopping have been attempted. The replacement of the CMPs has been attempted and has proven both costly and ineffective in terms of preventing flood damage to this section of Mattie Roberson Lane. The area is consistently eroded and the CMPs damaged, therefore, preventing proper flow. Repairs to damaged CMPs were considered and dismissed due to their repeated failure. 4.0 Affected Environment and Impacts This section describes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and the No-Action Alternative. Where potential impacts exist, conditions or mitigation measures to offset these impacts are detailed. A summary table is provided in Section 4.7. 4.1 Geology and Soils The project area is in alluvium of the West Gulf Coastal Plain region of Arkansas. The deposits consist of alluvial sediments of present streams and include gravels, sands, silts, clays, and mixtures of any and all of these (AGS 2010). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) online Web Soil Survey, the proposed project site contains soils classified as Guyton (USDA/NRC 2009). These soils are frequently flooded and have 0 to 1 percent slope. They are classified as silty loam or silty clay loam. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) states that federal agencies must “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses…” The Guyton soil is not classified as prime farmland soil and the FPPA does not apply. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no change in road construction methods would occur and the areas around the CMPs, including the rip rap and gravel, would continue to erode and wash downstream. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction Under the Proposed Action Alternative, construction activities would not be deep enough to impact underlying geologic resources. The placement of a bridge would return the soils of the project area more closely to its natural condition and therefore, geologic effects would be minimal at most. In addition, the creek bottom will likely have some disturbance and current soils and fill material will be removed. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required at the construction location. The BMP's could include the installation of silt fences and the vegetation of disturbed soils to minimize the potential for erosion. Excavated soil and waste materials will be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. If contaminated materials are discovered during the construction activities, the work will cease until the appropriate procedures and permits can be implemented. 4.2 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that states adopt ambient air quality standards. The standards have been established to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants. Under the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes primary and secondary air quality standards. Primary air quality standards protect the public health, including the health of “sensitive populations, such as people with asthma, children, and older adults.” Secondary air quality standards protect public welfare by promoting ecosystem health, preventing decreased visibility, and damage to crops and buildings. The EPA has set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the following six criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. According to the EPA Green Book for non-attainment, Union County and adjacent counties are in attainment, meaning all criteria air pollutants do not exceed the NAAQS (EPA 2010). Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would have no effect on air quality because no additional construction activities would occur. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction The proposed project is not expected to contribute emissions that would exceed the established NAAQS. Any effects to air quality from the operation of diesel engines or other construction equipment are expected to be localized and of short duration. Construction contractors would be required to implement measures such as watering down construction areas when necessary; reduce fuel-burning equipment running times; and properly maintain engines during construction of the project. 4.3 Water Resources The proposed project area crosses West Three Creeks in Union County, Arkansas. Due to the location of the site and the nature of the construction, different aspects of the projects effect on water resources and resource related landscape features, must be in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. 4.3.1 Water Quality The Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended in 1977, established the basic framework for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Water Division performs all state water quality certifications under Section 401 and Section 402 of the CWA. Activities that disturb water to include entry into water, debris removal from water or wetland, bridge construction/demolition, and other activities conducted in any water which might cause a violation of the Arkansas Water Quality Standards must be authorized by the ADEQ Director through a Short Term Activity Authorization (STAA).Due to the placement of the proposed bridge construction authorization has been obtained from ADEQ to exceed turbidity standards according to a short term activity authorization (Appendix A). Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and the roadway would continue to erode into the creek and cause a steady increase in sediment in the surface water until the roadway washed away. Groundwater would remain unaffected if no construction occurs. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction Under the Proposed Action Alternative, minor short term impacts to West Three Creeks may occur during the bridge construction period due to soil erosion. To reduce potential impacts to surface water, the applicant would implement appropriate BMPs, such as installing silt fences and re-vegetating bare soils. The applicant may also be required to obtain Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits prior to construction if necessary. A Short Term Activity Authorization Permit has been issued by the ADEQ regarding permitted activities associated with the construction of the bridge in West Three Creeks. After construction, soil erosion issues will be improved passed even current conditions, by removal of erodible materials and the placement of less erodible material. 4.3.2 Floodplain Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support of development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA uses Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to identify the regulatory 100-year floodplain for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The FIRM (Community Panel Number 05139C0275C), dated September 28, 2007 (Appendix B), identifies the project area within Zone A, an area within the 100-year floodplain (FEMA, 2007). Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no additional road construction would occur and there would be no impacts to the floodplain. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction The proposed bridge construction lies within the 100-year floodplain. Per 44 CFR §9.6., EO 11988 requires federal agencies “to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of the floodplain and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.” In compliance with FEMA regulations implementing EO 11988, FEMA is required to carry out the Eight-step decision-making process for actions that are proposed in the floodplain. The steps in the decision making process are as follows: Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action Alternative is located in the Base Floodplain The proposed bridge construction project involves the removal of an existing corrugated metal drainage pipe underlying a rural road and replacing the pipe with a 50-foot spanned bridge consisting of bridge abutments on each side of the creek supporting a 50-foot bridge spanning over the entire original creek channel. The proposed project, including the modifications to adjacent roadway and construction of a new drainage system associated with a bridge placement, is within Zone A of the 100-year floodplain according to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel Number 05139C0275C, dated September 28, 2007. Step 2 Early public notice (Preliminary Notice) A public notice for the proposed bridge construction will be published in the regional newspaper, El Dorado News-Times as part of the notice of availability for this Draft EA. Step 3 Identify and evaluate alternatives to locating in the base floodplain The proposed Mattie Robinson Bridge must take place in the floodplain because the road supported by the bridge is located in the floodplain. The floodplain is extensive in this area; therefore, there are no practicable alternatives to relocating the road beyond the floodplain that would provide access to residential communities. In addition, other resources such as potential wetlands and mature forested areas would be impacted if another road alignment was considered. Step 4 Identify impacts of Proposed Action Alternative associated with occupancy or modification of the floodplain Impact on natural function of the floodplain The proposed bridge would not negatively affect the functions and values of the 100-year floodplain. The proposed bridge construction would not impede or redirect flood flows. Embankment material would be removed for bridge construction, resulting in no additional fill added to floodplains. A Hydraulics and Hydrology (H&H) study was conducted by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) regarding the implementation of a bridge in lieu of the existing culvert system. The study concluded that in order to facilitate the quantity of flow, a 50-foot span bridge would be required. The current culvert system would not support the determined carrying capacity of the stream and therefore, the installation of the bridge is a necessity. It is anticipated that the bridge would result in the decreased flooding frequency and therefore, be a beneficial effect to the floodplain in the immediate area. For additional information, see Appendix A for the H&H study by the AHTD. The Union County Floodplain Administrator has concluded there will be no impacts to the floodplain. See Union County Floodplain Administrator’s letter dated December 12, 2011 included in Appendix A. Impact of the flood water on the proposed facilities The proposed bridge has been designed to minimize impacts from flooding. The H&H study prepared by the AHTD concluded that the proposed bridge would improve stormwater conveyance, thereby reducing the frequency of flood damage to the road. However, there is a potential that the proposed bridge could be damaged if a catastrophic flooding event were to occur. Step 5 Design or modify the Proposed Action Alternative to minimize threats to life and property and preserve its natural and beneficial floodplain values Various Flood Hazard Reduction techniques would be applied to minimize the flood impacts to the road and bridge. The increased hydraulic carrying capacity of the proposed bridge would decrease the frequency of flooding adjacent to the road. The Applicant must follow all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations and requirements and obtain and comply with all required permits and approvals, prior to initiating work on this project. No staging of equipment or project activities shall begin until all permits are obtained. Step 6 Re-evaluate the Proposed Action Alternative Per the discussions above, the proposed bridge will be appropriately designed for the 100-year floodplain. The action must take place within the floodplain and no limitations will occur as a result of the proposed action. It is anticipated that the proposed bridge will be beneficial to the floodplain because of the reduced flooding frequency. Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation (Final Notification) In accordance with 44 CFR §9.12, the Union County must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities. Documentation of the public notices are to be forwarded to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files. Step 8 Implement the action The proposed bridge will be constructed in accordance with applicable floodplain development requirements. An H&H study was conducted by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department regarding the implementation of a bridge in lieu of the existing culvert system. The study concluded that in order to facilitate the quantity of flow, a 50-foot span bridge would be required. The current culvert system only exacerbates flooding in the area. For additional information, see Appendix A for the H&H study by the AHTD. 4.3.3 Waters of the 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 groundwater 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. Under Section 404 of the CWA, 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. If an applicant has a project either in or near a water body, the applicant is required to fill out and submit the Multiple Project Information Sheet (MPIS) to the USACE and ADEQ to establish which permit(s), if any, will be required. EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. The USACE also regulates Navigable Waters, as defined by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 10 requires that regulated activities conducted below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) elevation of navigable waters of the United States be approved or permitted by the USACE. The OHWM is defined as a line on the riverbank established by the fluctuations of water and can often be indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, and the presence of litter and debris. Navigable waters of the United States are those waters of the U.S. that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water mark and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Regulated activities include the placement/removal of structures, work involving dredging, disposal of dredged material, filling, excavation, or any other disturbance of soils/sediments or modification of a navigable waterway. West Three Creeks is not considered a navigable water of the U.S. by the USACE. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map of the area was reviewed to identify the potential for wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. to occur within the project area. The NWI map indicated there is no data for the region (USFWS 2010). Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction and no impacts to waters of the U.S. or navigable waters and no USACE Section 404 or Section 10 permit would be required. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction All construction work associated with the replacement of the culverts and placement of a bridge will remain within the footprint of the road. However, because the site is potentially located near wetlands, BMPs will be followed to ensure these areas are not encroached upon. In addition, the removal of the current material surrounding the CMPs will have the beneficial effect of reducing erosion significantly and decreasing sediment being introduced into the creek and potential adjacent wetlands. In order to utilize BMPs several measures could be implemented on site as warranted during the construction phase. That includes temporary check dam, rock rip rap set in place for stabilization, seeding and re-vegetation, and the installing silt fences could all prove necessary to prevent environmental hazards. Barrier fencing will be required to keep all roadway construction out of adjacent wetland areas. Additionally, the contractor may have to locate maintenance areas to avoid the spillage of oil, fuel and other hazardous materials into wetlands and store operating supplies of such materials away from wetlands. The contractor may need to designate a specific location for draining lubricants and other fluids during routine maintenance and provide for collection, storage and proper disposal of said materials. This would also include providing containers to collect fluids when the inevitable breakdown occurs in the wetland and repairs must be made on the site. These actions would prevent various materials, such as eroded soil and hazardous chemicals used for equipment maintenance, from entering into the nearby waters. A Nationwide Permit # 14 to perform construction or modification to forms of linear transportation, such as bridges, was issued by the USACE. The letter notifying the authorization of this permit can be found in Appendix A. The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable Special, General, and Regional Conditions enumerated in the USACE Nationwide Permit # 14 issued for this project. It is anticipated that construction of the bridge would improve the flow of West Three Creeks by allowing the stream to return to a more nature condition and improve the regional hydrologic connectivity of the stream. 4.4 Biological Resources The proposed project area is a bottomland hardwood forest located in the floodplain of the West Three Creeks. Mattie Roberson Lane is a maintained gravel road that transects the area to provide access to several residential homes and the general public for recreational purposes. 4.4.1 Fish and Wildlife The regional vegetation is composed mostly of mature hardwood floodplain forest trees and understory. The area is dominated by overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), Nuttall’s Oak (Quercus nuttalli), baldcypress (Taxodium distichum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), Southern red oak (Quercus falcate), red maple (Acer rubrum), and river birch (Betula nigra); with an understory of roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) switch cane (Arundinaria gigantean), and swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata). Herbaceous vegetation was not observed in the project area because the recent flooding events have deposited enough soil material to cover low growing vegetation. The common animals in this region include beaver (Castor Canadensis), opossum (Ondatra zibethica), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mink (Neovison vison), raccon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Resident and migratory bird species that are commonly found in the area include turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Common reptiles and amphibians include box turtle (Terrapene carolina), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). The dominant fish species representative of regional creeks include the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venustus), brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense). These species are typically associated with streams of intermediate water quality. A comprehensive inventory list was obtained from The Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission and is contained within Appendix A. In regard to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project area is located within the West Gulf Coastal Plain of the Mississippi Flyway and may provide resting, feeding, and breeding grounds for migratory birds (USFWS 2009). However, the immediate study area does not contain suitable habitat as it is a disturbed roadway. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the road would continue to erode into the creek, resulting in elevated levels of sediment that could have potential impacts to terrestrial or aquatic habitats along this section of creek. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction Under the Proposed Action Alternative terrestrial habitat impacts would be minimal because the proposed construction area will be approximately the same area as the existing road footprint. To reduce potential impacts, the applicant would implement BMPs, such as installing silt fences and re-vegetating bare soils for the protection of the creek. The applicant would also be required to obtain SWPPP and NPDES permits prior to construction if necessary. No impacts to migratory bird species are anticipated due to bridge construction due to the low lying nature of the bridge, the lack of disturbance of any migratory bird migration pathways, and the scale of the project. The amount of sediment entering the creek will also be significantly reduced once the current roadway is removed and a concrete bridge is in place. It is also anticipated the by improving the regional hydrologic connectivity of the creek, the proposed bridge will improve fish passage as well. 4.4.2 Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA), to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. The ESA also prohibits any action that causes a “taking” of any listed species of endangered fish or wildlife. The State of Arkansas relies upon federal legislation to protect animal and plant resources. The United States Fish and Wildlife service has stated that the only known threatened and endangered species to occur in the project area is the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). BMPs, such as the implementation of silt fencing to minimize erosion as well as seeding, will be followed when working in areas that could potentially affect the project area habitat. Prior to construction, the surrounding tree cavities must be surveyed to ensure there would be no harmful effects to any nearby Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to federally protected species because no construction would occur. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to federally protected species or their habitats are anticipated because the proposed construction area will be approximately the same area as the existing road footprint. The removal of the current material surrounding the CMPs will have the beneficial effect of reducing erosion significantly and decreasing sediment being introduced to the creek. This is anticipated to have positive impact to the native species and their habitat because the proposed bridge would return the creek and associated habitat to more stable condition. Only areas on the banks beneath the proposed bridge would be affected and would be minimal. BMP measures to be followed would include the placement of both silt fences and seeding to minimize the erosion of potential vegetation which could potentially provide a food source for surrounding wildlife. 4.5 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 Preservation regulations pertaining to the protection of historic properties (36 CFR 800.4), federal agencies are required to identify and evaluate historic resources for NRHP eligibility and assess the effects the undertaking would have on historic properties. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be no affect to historical properties as no exist within the project area. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction In response to a consultation letter dated February 3, 2011, the Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, indicated on February 15, 2011 that “No known historic properties will be affected by this undertaking” (Appendix A). In the event that archeological deposits, including any Native American pottery, stone tools, bones, or human remains, are uncovered, the project shall be halted and the applicant shall stop all work immediately in the vicinity of the discovery and take reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. All archeological findings will be secured and access to the sensitive area restricted. The applicant will inform FEMA immediately and FEMA will consult with the SHPO or THPO and Tribes and work in sensitive areas cannot resume until consultation is completed and appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that the project is in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 4.6 Socioeconomic Resources 4.6.1 Environmental Justice EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) mandates that federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Mattie Roberson Lane is located in a relatively remote location in Union County. It is geographically close to El Dorado, Arkansas. At the time of the most recent United States Census Survey, the number of people in El Dorado, AR was 21,530. The median household income in the community at the time of the last survey was $27,045. According to the most recent survey, families living below the poverty line in El Dorado numbered 1,166, or 20 percent of the population. Minorities represented 46.3 percent of the total population of El Dorado (USCB 2000). Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, community residents and the general public could be denied access due to temporary road failure, which in turn could result in undue economic hardship for these people. Eventually, the project area would be washed away due to ongoing erosion and would result in permanent road closure. There would be no disproportionately high or adverse impact on minority or low-income portions of the population; all populations would continue to be equally affected. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction The Proposed Action Alternative would provide a road that is not susceptible to failure due to erosion and that would be accessible and beneficial to all members of the community. There would be no disproportionately high or adverse impact on minority or low-income portions of the population; all populations would benefit from this project. 4.6.2 Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is most commonly measured in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale most similar to the range of sounds that the human ear can hear. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is an average 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. EPA guidelines, and those of many other federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB DNL are “normally unacceptable” for sensitive receptors (e.g., noise-sensitive land uses) such as residences, schools, or hospitals. The project site is in a rural area of the county and is not located near any sensitive receptors. The generation of noise during construction would be temporary and minor in nature. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would not result in noise impacts because no additional road construction would occur. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction Sensitive receptors would not be affected as there are none located in proximity to the project area. Noise generated by the operation of equipment during the construction phase of the proposed project is expected to be temporary and minor. Construction would take place during normal business hours and equipment would meet all local, state, and federal noise regulations. 4.6.3 Public Health and Safety Safety and security issues considered in this EA include the health and safety of area residents, the public-at-large, and the protection of personnel involved in the activities related to the proposed construction of the project. Construction activities could present safety risks to those performing the activities as well as the public-at-large. To minimize risks to safety and human health, all construction activities would be performed using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of the appropriate equipment, including all appropriate safety precautions. Additionally, all activities would be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities. 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. Hazardous substances are primarily generated by industry, hospitals, research facilities, and the government. Improper management and disposal of hazardous substances can lead to pollution of groundwater or other drinking water supplies, and the contamination of surface water and soil. Hazardous materials and waste are regulated in Arkansas by a combination of federal and state laws. The primary federal regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous substances are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Solid Waste Act (SWA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Visual observations 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. The following is a list of federal and state databases reviewed for this project: EPA EnviroMapper (EPA 2010b), EPA National Priorities List (EPA 2010c), EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System List (EPA 2010d), and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Hazardous Waste Division databases (ADEQ Hazardous Waste Division). Based on this search, the proposed project site is not located within any land-use types with potential for generating hazardous substances that would pose a contamination threat to the project site. No hazardous substances have been identified in the project area and the proposed work itself is not expected to generate any hazardous substances. Therefore, no further background research is recommended. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative could have a negative effect on the general safety of the residents within the proposed project area because of the anticipated road failure from future flooding. No impacts from hazardous materials or waste are anticipated. Alternative 2: Bridge Construction Under the Proposed Action Alternative, short-term safety risks to residents, general public, and construction personnel would be present during construction. Protective measures to be implemented during project construction would minimize these risks. All construction activities would be performed using qualified personnel and in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations; appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities. No hazardous materials or waste impacts are anticipated. Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during construction would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Safety would be improved long-term under this alternative by removing road failure-related limitations on emergency vehicle access. There would be no disproportionate health and safety risks to children. 4.7 Summary The following table summarizes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and conditions or mitigation measures to offset those impacts. Affected Environment: Geology and Soils Impacts: No Impacts to geology are anticipated. Soils on the projects site will be disturbed by grading during construction. In addition, the creek bottom will likely have some disturbance and current soils and fill material will be removed. Mitigation: Proposed BMPs’ include the installation of silt fences and vegetation of disturbed areas. Affected Environment: Air Quality Impacts: Short-term impacts to air quality would occur during the construction period. Mitigation: Construction contractors would be required to water down construction areas when necessary; fuel-burning equipment running times would be kept to a minimum; engines would be properly maintained. Affected Environment: Water Quality Impacts: Short-term impacts to surface water are anticipated. The removal of the current material surrounding the CMPs will have the beneficial effect of reducing erosion significantly and decreasing sediment being introduced into the creek. No impacts to groundwater are anticipated. Mitigation: Appropriate BMPs, such as installing silt fences and re-vegetating bare soils, would minimize runoff; a SWPPP and a NPDES permit must be obtained prior to construction if necessary and measures for soil erosion and sediment controls should be in place and maintained during construction periods and re-vegetation is required along with stabilization practices on site to affected areas. Affected Environmnet: Floodplains Impacts: An H&H study conclude that the proposed bridge would decrease the flooding frequency and would have a beneficial effect on the floodplain. The Floodplain Administrator has determined that the bridge will not impact the floodplain. Mitigation: Various Flood Hazard Reduction techniques would be applied to minimize the flood impacts to the road and bridge. Affected Environment: Waters of the U.S. including Wetlands Impacts: No impacts to wetlands are anticipated. The removal of the current material surrounding the CMPs will have the beneficial effect of reducing erosion significantly and decreasing sediment being introduced into the creek. Mitigation: Under USACE Nationwide Permit No. 14 regarding Linear Transportation Projects, soil erosion and sediment controls should be in place and maintained during construction periods and re-vegetation is required along with stabilization practices on site to affected areas. Additionally, any loss to wetlands exceeding 1/10 acre will result in a compensatory mitigation of a minimum one to one ratio. The complete explanation of Nationwide Permit No. 14 can be found in Appendix A. Barrier fencing will be required to keep all roadway construction out of adjacent wetland areas. Affected Environment: Fish and Wildlife Impacts: Terrestrial habitat impacts would be minimal because the proposed construction area will be approximately the same area as the existing road footprint. Mitigation: To reduce potential impacts, the applicant would implement BMPs, such as installing silt fences and re-vegetating bare soils for the protection of the creek. Affected Environment: Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts: No impacts to other biological resources or any federally protected species or their habitat are anticipated. The removal of the current material surrounding the CMPs will have the beneficial effect of reducing erosion significantly and decreasing sediment being introduced into the creek. Mitigation: Appropriate BMPs, such as installing silt fences and re-vegetating bare soils, would minimize runoff; Proper mitigation procedures under Nationwide Permit No. 14 will be followed on site. The USFWS has recommended a Red-Cockaded Woodpecker cavity tree survey within the vicinity of the project area be performed prior to construction to determine that no harmful actions will take place. Affected Environment: Cultural Resources Impacts: No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. Mitigation: In the event that archeological deposits, including any Native American pottery, stone tools, bones, or human remains, are uncovered, the project shall be halted and the applicant shall stop all work immediately in the vicinity of the discovery and take reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. All archeological findings will be secured and access to the sensitive area restricted. In the event of human burials, Act 753 of the 1991 of the Arkansas Burial Law will be followed and the applicant will inform Arkansas Department of Emergency Management and FEMA immediately and FEMA will consult with the AHPP or THPO and Tribes and work in sensitive areas cannot resume until consultation is completed and appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that the project is in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Affected Environment: Environmental Justice Impacts: All populations would benefit from the Proposed Action. Mitigation: None Affected Environment: Noise Impacts: Short-term impacts to air quality would occur during the construction period. Mitigation: Construction would take place during normal business hours and equipment would meet all local, state, and federal noise regulations. Affected Environment: Public Health and Safety Impacts: No hazardous materials or waste impacts are anticipated. There is potential for temporary minor impacts to safety of residences and construction personnel during construction activities. Safety would be improved in the long-term by removing road failure-related limitations on emergency vehicle access. Mitigation: Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during construction would be disposed of and handled in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. All construction activities would be performed using qualified personnel and in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations; appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities. 4.8 Cumulative Impacts According to Council on Environmental Quality regulations, cumulative impacts represent the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).” In accordance with NEPA and to the extent reasonable and practical, this EA considered the combined effect of the Proposed Action Alternative and other actions occurring or proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The proposed project is the removal of CMPs and fill material and the subsequent construction of a 50-foot span bridge. The proposed project would return natural flow to West Three Creeks and allow for safer travel across said creek. There are no other large-scale projects occurring or proposed by Union County in or near the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in cumulative impacts on the human or natural environment. 5.0 Agency Coordination As part of the development of the Environmental Assessment, federal and state resource protection agencies were contacted. Responses received to date are included in Appendix A. * Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, North Little Rock, AR * Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, AR * Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, * The Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Little Rock, AR * The Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR * U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, Vicksburg, MS * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Conway, AR * Union County Floodplain Administrator, Union County, AR In accordance with applicable, local, state, and federal regulations, the applicant would be responsible for acquiring any necessary permits prior to commencing construction at the proposed project site. 6.0 Public Involvement FEMA is the lead federal agency for conducting the NEPA compliance process for the Mattie Roberson Lane Bridge construction project in Union County, Arkansas. It is the goal of the lead agency to expedite the preparation and review of NEPA documents and to be responsive to the needs of the community and the purpose and need of the proposed action while meeting the intent of NEPA and complying with all NEPA provisions. Union County will notify the public of the availability of the draft EA through publication of a notice in the local newspaper of record. The draft EA will be available at both a local repository and at FEMA.gov. A 30-day public comment period will commence on the initial date of the public notice. FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments either individually or in the Final EA. 7.0 Conclusion No adverse impacts to geology, groundwater, floodplains, waters of the U.S., including wetlands, migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, hazardous materials, or socioeconomic resources are anticipated with the Proposed Action Alternative. Positive impacts to surface water, waters of the U.S., transportation, environmental justice, biological resources, safety, and socioeconomic resources are expected. Permanent minor impacts are anticipated to soil and terrestrial habitat resources. During the construction period, short-term impacts to downstream surface water, transportation, air quality, noise and safety are anticipated. All short-term impacts require conditions to minimize and mitigate impacts to the proposed project site and surrounding areas. 8.0 References Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Hazardous Waste Division. http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/default.htm. Last updated on April 23, 2010. Accessed December 2010. Arkansas Geological Survey (AGS). 2010. Geology Stratigraphy. http://www.geology.ar.gov/home/index.htm. Accessed December 2010 Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Culvert Size Selection (H&H Criteria). Document dated 8/6/2009. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. The Greenbook Non Attainment Areas For Criteria Pollutants, http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbook. Accessed December 2010. EPA. 2010b. EnviroMapper. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home. Accessed December 2010. EPA 2010c. National Priorities List. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/. Accessed December 2010. EPA 2010d. Superfund Information Systems. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/. Accessed December 2010. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2007. FEMA Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1. Accessed December 2010. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. American Fact Finder, Arkansas. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/05000.html. Accessed December 2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed December 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. National Wetland Inventory. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.Accessed December 2010. USFWS. 2009. Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/mbtintro.html. Accessed December 2010. 9.0 List of Preparers Document Preparer: Project Manager Jim York ATOKA, Inc. Hot Springs, AR Senior Engineer Jason Temple, PE ATOKA, Inc. Hot Springs, AR Principal Investigators: Darold Schneider, FEMA Project Specialist Donald Douglas, FEMA PAC L.W. Huddleston, State PAC Government Contributors: Kevin Jaynes, CHMM, Regional Environmental Officer, FEMA Region 6 Alan Hermely, Environmental Specialist, FEMA Region 6 Appendix A Consultation Letters Appendix B Site Map Appendix C Site Photographs ATOKA, Inc.