Reviewer Name: Brandon M Clark ' * •• . r-•, „• . Record of Environmental Consideration See 44Code ofFederal Regulation Part 10. Project Name/Numher: Louisiana Office of State Building (Harvey State Office) /PW 11452 Project Location: 2150 Westbank Expressway, Harvey, Louisiana, Jefferson Parish (N29 90301 W 90.07274) ' Project Description: Project activities include repairing the office building to pre-disaster condition and upgrading to current codes and standards. Project includes installing 514 linear feet ofwall base, priming and painting walls, replacing and adjusting doors, light fixtures and blinds, rebalancing HVAC systemonfirstfloor,andtinting 11windows. Documentation Requirements • No Documentation Required (Review Concluded) • (Short version) All consultation and agreements implemented to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and Executive Orders 11988,11990 and 12898 are completed and noother laws apply. (Review Concluded) IEI (Long version) All applicable laws and executive orders were reviewed. Additional information for compliance is attached to this REC. National Environmental Policy Act fNEPA) Determination D Statutorily excluded from NEPA review. (Review Concluded) • ProgrammaticCategoricalExclusion-Category (Review Concluded) • Categorical Exclusion -Category LJ No Extraordinary Circumstances exist. Are project conditions required? D Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) |_J Extraordinary Circumstances exist (See Section IV). • Extraordinary Circumstances mitigated. (See Section IV comments) Are project conditions required? Q Yes (see section V) Q No (Review Concluded) LJ Environmental Assessment "— D Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Reference EA or PEA in comments) I2SI Environmental Impact Statement Comments: 7/19/2006 -This project meets the criteria for an Alternative Arrangement (Government and Court Administration Buildings) type ofproject. This project has conditions and requires mitigation under the other EHP laws. Record ofEnvironmental Consideration 1 07/19/06 Reviewer N.me: Brandon M. Clark Applicant: Facility Planning and Control, State of Louisiana Se OffiLTer8' r0gr* Tit'e: DR1603LA'Hurricane Katrina Ip«Wic Assistance Program /Uuisiana Office ofState Building (Harvey Reviewer and Approvals • Project is Non-Compliant (See attached documentation justifying selection). FEMA Environmental Reviewer. Name: Brandon M. Clark, Environmental Specialist Signature Bv^ol^ CMAi-._ Date 7/19/2006 FEMA Regional Environmental Officer ordelegated approving official. Name: Donald R. Fairley, ELO j ! ^_^g t^^ , Date 7/19/2006 Signature f^-=»— /^> I-Compliance Review for Environmental Laws (other than NEPA) A. National Historic Preservation Act ^ Not type ofactivity with potential to affect historic properties. (Review Concluded) • Applicable executed Programmatic Agreement Otherwise, conduct standard Section 106 review. U Activity meets Programmatic Allowance # Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES E3 No historic properties that are listed or 45/50 years or older in project area. (Review Concluded) • Building or structure listed or 45/50 years or older in project area and activity not exempt from review. • Determination ofNo Historic Properties Affected (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • Determination ofHistoric Properties Affected (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) • Property aNational Historic Landmark and National Park Service was provided early notification duringtheconsultation process. Ifnot, explainincomments • No Adverse Effect Determination (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file). Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • Adverse Effect Determination (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) • Resolution ofAdverse Effect completed. (MOA on file) Are project conditions required Q Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES E3 Project affects only previously disturbed ground. (Review Concluded) O Project affects undisturbed ground. • Project area has no potential for presence ofarcheological resources • Determination ofno historic properties affected (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence or consultation on file). (Review Concluded) • Project area has potential for presence ofarcheological resources • Determination ofno historic properties affected (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) Q Determination ofhistoric properties affected • NR eligible resources not present (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file). Are project conditions required QYes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • NR eligible resources present in project area. (FEMA finding/ SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) • No Adverse Effect Determination. (FEMA finding/ SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • Adverse Effect Determination. (FEMA finding/ SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) • Resolution ofAdverse Effect completed. (MOA on file) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see section V) • No Record ofEnvironmental Consideration 2 07/19/06 ReviewerName: Brandon M.Clark a««ii..-». n.»-rfc m (Review Concluded) Comments: Building constructed in 1992. Correspondence/Consultation/References: B. Endangered Species Act gl No listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action (Review Concluded) U Listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in the areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action U No effect to species or designated critical habitat (See comments for justification) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) U May affect, but not likely to adversely affect species or designated critical habitat (FEMAdetermination/USFWS/NMFS concurrence on file) (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) U Likely to adversely affect species ordesignated critical habitat • Formal consultation concluded. (Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion on file) Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) |~1 NO (Review Concluded) Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: C. Coastal Barrier Resources Act S Project is not on or connected to CBRA Unit or Otherwise Protected Area (Review Concluded) U Project is on or connected to CBRA Unit or Otherwise Protected Area. (FEMA determination/USFWS consultation on file) D Proposed action an exception under Section 3505.a.6? (Review Concluded) • Proposed action not excepted under Section 3505.a.6. Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) Q NO (Review Concluded) Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: D. Clean Water Act G3 Project would not affect any waters ofthe U.S. (Review Concluded) D Project would affect waters, including wetlands, ofthe U.S. D Project exempted as in kind replacement or other exemption. (Review Concluded) • Project requires Section 404/401/or Section 9/10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) permit, including qualification under Nationwide Permits. Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Project is not in or adjacent to any waterways ofthe US. Correspondence/Consultation/References: E. Coastal Zone Management Act D Project is not located in acoastal zone area and does not affect acoastal zone area (Review concluded) I2SI Projectislocatedina coastal zone areaand/oraffects the coastal zone E3 State administering agency does not require consistency review. (Review Concluded) • State administering agency requires consistency review. Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) Q NO (Review Concluded) Comments: FEMA has determined that this project is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Louisiana Coastal Management Plan (LCMP). Correspondence/Consultation/References: Record of Environmental Consideration 07/19/06 m^Zl^r BZi0D M-^ T-. ApP'ic»nt: Facility Planni"8 «*» Control, State of Louisiana SlTSj °8r r0JWt DR1603LAIHurricaneK^««'P"b'icAssistanceProgram/LouisianaOfficeofStateBuilding(Harvey F. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act E3 Project does not affect, control, or modify awaterway/body ofwater. (Review Concluded) U Project affects, controls or modifies awaterway/body ofwater. • Coordination with USFWS conducted • No Recommendations offered by USFWS. (Review Concluded) • Recommendations provided by USFWS. Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Project is not in oradjacent to any waterways ofthe US. Correspondence/Consultation/References: G. Clean Air Act S Project will not result in permanent air emissions. (Review Concluded) • Project is located in an attainment area. (Review Concluded) • Projectislocatedina non-attainmentarea. • Coordination required with applicable state administering agency.. Are project conditions required? Q YES (see section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Project will notresult inpermanent airemissions. Correspondence/Consultation/References: H. Farmland Protection Policy Act P Project does not affect designated prime or unique farmland. (Review Concluded) • Project causes unnecessary or irreversible conversion ofdesignated prime or unique farmland. • Coordination with Natural Resource Conservation Commission required. • Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, Form AD-1006, completed. Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) Q NO (Review Concluded) Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: I. Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Project not located within aflyway zone. (Review Concluded) 13Project located within aflyway zone. E] Project does not have potential to take migratory birds. (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) M No (Review Concluded) • Project has potential to take migratory birds. • Contact made with USFWS Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: See letter from Don Fairley to Mr. Russ Watson with USF&WS, dated 09/14/2005. Specifically FEMA has determined that restoration projects funded with federal resources will not have adverse impacts on migratory birds or other fish and wildlife reserves. These determinations are based on the understanding that the conditions outlined in the Louisiana Endangered Species Summary are met. Carre^>mdence/Comuhation/Reference5:\imJli^ map.pdf J. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act p3 Project not located in or near Essential Fish Habitat. (Review Concluded) • Project located inornear Essential Fish Habitat. • Project does not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) Q No (Review Concluded) • Project adversely affects Essential Fish Habitat (FEMA determination/USFWS/NMFS concurrence on file) D NOAA Fisheries provided no recommendation(s) (Review Concluded). Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) U NOAA Fisheries provided recommendation(s) • Written reply to NOAA Fisheries recommendations completed. Record ofEnvironmental Consideration 4 07/19/06 Reviewer Name: Brandon M. Clark Applicant: Facility Planning and Control, State of Louisiana S:Wr0P ^ ™e: DR16°3LA'HUrriC8neKatrina'WbKeA",--»"*»»'^uisianaOfficeo^BuZg(Harvey Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) L~lNO (Review Concluded) Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: K. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act E3 Project is not along and does not affect Wild or Scenic River (WSR) •• (Review Concluded) • Project is along oraffects WSR • Project adversely affects WSR as determined by NPS/USFS. FEMA cannot fund the action (NPS/USFS/USFWS/BLM consultation on file) (Review Concluded) ' • Project does not adversely affect WSR. (NPS/USFS/USFWS/BLM consultation on file) Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) QNO (Review Concluded) Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: L. Other Relevant Laws and Environmental Regulations II. Compliance Review for Executive Orders A. E.0.11988 -Floodplains D No Effect on Floodplains/Flood levels and project outside Floodplain -(Review Concluded) E3 Located in Floodplain or Effects on Floodplains/Flood levels E3 No adverse effect on floodplain and not adversely affected by the floodplain. (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? g| Yes (see section V) Q No (Review Concluded) D Beneficial Effect on Floodplain Occupancy/Values (Review Concluded). • Possible adverse effects associated with investment in floodplain, occupancy or modification offloodplain environment • 8Step Process Complete -documentation on file Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) Q NO (Review Concluded) Comments: 07/18/2006 -The Parish ofJefferson enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on 10/1/1971 Per Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel number 22051C0135E, dated 03/23/1995, project is located in ashaded "x" zone area protected from the 100-yr flood by levee, dike or other structure subject to failure or overtopping during larger floods. Project is repair ofbuilding and repair ofelectrical components. Per flood recovery guidance, dated 04/12/2006 where possible, all equipment and contents should be elevated at least 3ft. above the highest adjacent grade elevation K Roof, Floodplain Management Specialist. Correspondence/Consultation/References: B. E.0.11990 -Wetlands MNo Effects on Wetland(s) andproject located outside Wetland(s)-(ReviewConcluded) D Located in Wetland or effects Wetland(s) • Beneficial Effect on Wetland -(Review Concluded) • Possible adverse effect associated with constructing in or near wetland • Review completed as part offloodplain review • 8StepProcessComplete-documentationonfile Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: C. E.0.12898 -Environmental Justice For Low Income and Minority Populations ^ NoLowmcomeorminoritypopulationin,nearoraffectedbytheproject-(ReviewConcluded) U Low income or minority population in or near project area D No disproportionately high and adverse impact on low income or minority population-(Review Concluded) LJ Disproportionately high or adverse effects on low income or minority population Record ofEnvironmental Consideration 5 07/19/06 Reviewer Name: Brandon M Clark » •• » t-•. „• Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) DnO (Review Concluded) Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: III. Other Environmental Issues Identify other potential environmental concerns in the comment box not clearly falling under alaw or executive order (see environmental concerns scoping checklist for guidance). Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: IV. Extraordinary Circumstances Based on the review of compliance with other environmental laws and Executive Orders, and in consideration of other environmental factors, review the project for extraordinary circumstances. *uA ,Tf"""^j*1?circumstancemayrequire an EnvironmentalAssessment(EA) withthe exceptionof(ii) which should be applied in conjunction with controversy on an environmental issue. Ifthe circumstance can be mitigated pleaseexplainin comments. Ifno,leaveblank. Yes D (j)Greaterscopeorsizethannormallyexperiencedforaparticularcategoryofaction LJ (ii) Actions with ahigh level ofpublic controversy • (iii) Potential for degradation, even though slight, ofalready existing poor environmental conditions; • (iv) Employment ofunproven technology with potential adverse effects or actions involving unique or unknown environmental risks; • (v) Presence of endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat, or archaeological, cultural, historical orother protected resources; • (vi) Presence ofhazardous or toxic substances at levels which exceed Federal, state or local regulations orstandards requiring action orattention; U (vii) Actions with the potential to affect special status areas adversely or other critical resources such as wetlands, coastal zones, wildlife refuge and wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, sole orprincipal drinking water aquifers; LJ (viii) Potential for adverse effects on health or safety; and • (ix) Potential to violate afederal, state, local or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection ofthe environment. • (x) Potential for significant cumulative impact when the proposed action is combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, even though the impacts of the proposed action may notbesignificant bythemselves. Comments: None Correspondence/Consultation/References: V. Environmental Review Project Conditions Project Conditions: 1. Per flood recovery guidance, dated 04/12/2006, where possible, all equipment and contents should be elevated at least 3 ft. above the highest adjacent grade elevation. Monitoring Requirements: None Record ofEnvironmental Consideration 6 07/19/06