Reviewer Name: Nicole Poret Applicant: Plaquemines Parish Disaster/Emergency/Program/Project Title: DR1603/Hurricane Katrina/Public Assistance/Parish Wide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) Record of Environmental Consideration See44CodeofFederal Regulation Part 10. Project Name/Number: Parish Wide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) Project Location: Various locations (21 sites) throughout Plaquemines Parish (see Project Worksheet for coordinates) Project Description: Repair to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) at 21 lift stations. This project includes ahazard mitigation proposal to elevate the SCADA control panels above the ABFE or to the second floor of some lift stations. 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 no other laws apply. (Review Concluded) K! (Long version) All applicable laws and executive orders were reviewed. Additional information for compliance is attached to this REC. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Determination • Statutorily excluded from NEPA review. (Review Concluded) • Programmatic Categorical Exclusion -Category xv and xvi (Reference PCE in comments) (Review Concluded) I I Categorical Exclusion -Category [U No Extraordinary Circumstances exist. Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • Extraordinary Circumstances exist (See Section IV). • Extraordinary Circumstances mitigated. (See Section IV comments) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) L] Environmental Assessment U Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Reference EA or PEA in comments) £3 Environmental Impact Statement Comments: This project meets the criteriafor an Alternate Arrangement Utilities and Waste Water Treatment Plants type ofproject. Reviewer and Approvals • Project is Non-Compliant (See attached documentation justifying selection). Record of Environmental Consideration (07/03/2006) 1 07/03/06 Reviewer Name: Nicole Poret *„„ii„„_«. di nL „. .~ m„. Applicant: PlaqueminesParish pisaster/Emergency/Program/Project Title: DR1603/Hurricane Katrina/Public Assistance/Parish Wide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) FEMA Environmental Reviewer. Name: Nicole Poret Signature Date FEMA Regional Environmental Officer or delegated approving official. Name: William Fagan Signature__ Date 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) 13 Applicable executed Programmatic Agreement December 3. 2004 Otherwise, conduct standard Section 106 review. ^ Activity meets Programmatic Allowance # LJ Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) ^ No (Review Concluded) HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 13 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 of No Historic Properties Affected (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • Determination of Historic Properties Affected (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) • Property aNational Historic Landmark and National Park Service was provided early notification during theconsultation process. Ifnot, explain incomments • No Adverse Effect Determination (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file). Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) fj 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 (Review Concluded) ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ^ Project affects only previously disturbed ground. (Review Concluded) • Project affects undisturbed ground. • Project area has no potential for presence of archeological 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 of no historic properties affected (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) CD Determination ofhistoric properties affected • NR eligible resources not present (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file). Are project conditions required DYes (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 (Review Concluded) Record of Environmental Consideration (07/03/2006) 2 Reviewer Name: Nicole Poret Applicant: Plaquemines Parish Disaster/Emergency/Program/Project Title: DR1603/Hurricane Katrina/Public Assistance/Parish Wide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) Comments: This scope ofwork has been reviewed and meets the criteria in Appendix A, Programmatic Allowances, Item IJ, FEMA's Programmatic Agreement (PA) dated December 3, 2004. No known archaeological sites or historic propertieswill be affected by this undertaking. In accordance with the PA FEMA is not required to determine the National RegistereligibilityofpropertieswhereworkperformedmeetstheAppendixAcriteria. Section106review iscompleted. Correspondence/Consultation/References: Chelsea Klein, Historic Preservation Specialist B. Endangered Species Act [3No listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action. (Review Concluded) • Listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in the areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action. • No effect to species or designated critical habitat (See comments for justification) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • May affect, but not likely to adversely affect species or designated critical habitat (FEMA determination/USFWS/NMFS concurrence on file) (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • Likely to adversely affect species or designated critical habitat • Formal consultation concluded. (Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion on file) Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: Endangered Species Summaryfor USFWS consultation; letter to Don Fairley datedSeptember 15,2005. C. Coastal Barrier Resources Act 13 Project is not on orconnected to CBRA Unit or Otherwise Protected Area (Review Concluded). • Project is on or connected to CBRA Unit or Otherwise Protected Area. (FEMA determination/USFWS consultation on file) • 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) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: FIRM PanelNumbers: 220139-0465C, 220139-0690D, 220139-0655C, 2201390660C, 220139-0445C dated 09/30/199 and 220139-0885C, 220139-09IOC dated 09/28/1990; 2201390060B dated 05/01/1985; 2201390435B dated 05/01/1985. D. Clean Water Act 13 Project would not affect any waters ofthe U.S. (Review Concluded) D Project would affect waters, including wetlands, ofthe U.S. • 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: Correspondence/Consultation/References: Damage description and scope ofwork from the Project Worksheet. E. Coastal Zone Management Act • Projectisnotlocatedinacoastalzoneareaanddoesnotaffectacoastalzonearea (Review concluded) ^ Project islocated ina coastal zone area and/or affects the coastal zone Record of Environmental Consideration (07/03/2006) 3 07/03/06 Reviewer Name: Nicole Poret Applicant: Plaquemines Parish Disaster/Emergency/Program/Project Title: DR1603/Hurricane Katrina/Public Assistance/Parish Wide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) • State administering agency does not require consistency review. (Review Concluded). E3 State administering agency requires consistency review. Are project conditions required? ^ YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: This project (all 21 lift stations) is located within the Louisiana Coastal Management Zone. The Louisiana Department ofNatural Resources has determined that receipt offederal assistance isconsistent with theLouisianaCoastalResourceProgram. ProjectswithinthecoastalzonemaystillrequireaCoastalUsepermit (CUP) or other authorizationfrom DNR. Projects may be coordinated by contacting LDNR at 1-800-267-4019. Correspondence/Consultation/References: FIRM PanelNumbers: 220139-0465C, 220139-0690D, 220139-0655C, 220139-0660C, 220139-0445C dated 09/30/199 and220139-0885C, 220139-09IOC dated 09/28/1990; 2201390060B dated 05/01/1985; 2201390435B dated 05/01/1985. F. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [X]Projectdoesnotaffect,control,ormodifyawaterway/bodyofwater. (ReviewConcluded) O 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? • YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: Damage description and scope ofwork from the Project Worksheet. G. Clean Air Act [3 Project will not result in permanent air emissions. (Review Concluded) • Project islocated inan attainment area. (Review Concluded) EH Projectislocatedina non-attainmentarea. O Coordination required with applicable state administering agency.. Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: Damage description and scope ofwork from the Project Worksheet. H. Farmland Protection Policy Act ^ Project does not affect designated prime or unique farmland. (Review Concluded) • Project causes unnecessary or irreversible conversion of designated prime or unique farmland. ED Coordination with Natural Resource Conservation Commission required. • Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, Form AD-1006, completed. Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Project sites are in developed areas. Correspondence/Consultation/References: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ I. Migratory Bird Treaty Act CI Project not located within a flyway zone. (Review Concluded) ^ Project located within a flyway zone. [3 Project does not have potential to take migratory birds. (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) 03 No (Review Concluded) RecordofEnvironmentalConsideration(07/03/2006) 4 07/03/06 Reviewer Name: Nicole Poret ApplicMt Plaquemines Parish Disaster/Emergency/Program/Project Title: DR1603/Hurricane Katrina/Public Assistance/Parish Wide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System(SCADA) M • Project has potential to take migratory birds. • Contact madewith USFWS Are project conditions required? __iYES (see section V) BlNO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/Mississippi_Flywaymap.pdf J. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act £3Project not located in or near Essential Fish Habitat. (Review Concluded) • Project located in or near Essential Fish Habitat. • Project does not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) • Project adversely affects Essential Fish Habitat (FEMA determination/USFWS/NMFS concurrence on file) • NOAA Fisheries provided no recommendation(s) (Review Concluded). Are project conditions required? • Yes (see section V) • No (Review Concluded) LH NOAA Fisheries provided recommendation(s) LJ Written reply toNOAA Fisheries recommendations completed. Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/ 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) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: Damage description and scope ofwork from the Project Worksheet, http://wwwlamap.doa.louisiana.gov/ L. Other Relevant Laws and Environmental Regulations Identify relevant law or regulations, resolution and any consultation/references II. Compliance Review for Executive Orders A. E.0.11988 -Floodplains • No Effect on Floodplains/Flood levels and project outside Floodplain -(Review Concluded) £3 Located in Floodplain or Effects on Floodplains/Flood levels ^ No adverse effect on floodplain and not adversely affected by the floodplain. (Review Concluded). Areproject conditions required? __ Yes (seesection V) • No(Review Concluded) • Beneficial Effect on Floodplain Occupancy/Values (Review Concluded). • Possible adverse effects associated with investment in floodplain, occupancy or modification of floodplain environment Record of Environmental Consideration (07/03/2006) 07/03/06 Reviewer Name: Nicole Poret A .. p| _ System (sSry^r0gr"m/Pr0JeCtTit'e: DRI6°3/Hurricane Katrina^ublic Assistance/Parish Wide SupennZ^oLA^O^A^ilkm D 8Step Process Complete -documentation on file Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) Q NO (Review Concluded) Comments: The parish ofPlaquemines is enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as of05/01/1985 Per Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel numbers: 220139-0465Q 220139-0690D, 220139-0655C 220139-0660C 220139-0445C dated 09/30/1993 and220139-0885Q 220139-0910C dated 09/28/1990, projectfor'lift stations 16 'll 20, 24, 34, 41, 52, Buras Waste Water Treatment Plant, Homeplace Water Tower, Buras Watertower, Bootheville Water Tower, Empire Booster Station, Diamond Booster Station, and Boothville Waster Water Treatment Plant is located within ^fJ??*' ^^°f100-yearfl°°dt°beprotectedbyfloodprotectionsystemunderconstruction, basefloodelevations andflood hazardfactors not determined. Per FIRMpanel numbers 220139-0465C and 220139-0655C dated 09/30/1993 projectforliftstation15,19andPortSulphurWaste WaterTreatmentPlantislocatedwithinanA2Zone PerFIRMpanel number220139-0060Bdated05/01/1985projectforDalcour Water TowerandDalcourwater Treatmentplantislocated within an All Zone. Per FIRMpanel number 2201390435B dated 05/01/1985 projectfor Port Sulphur Water Treatment Plant is located within anA14 Zone. Areas are all of100-yearflooding, baseflood elevation andflood hazardfactors as determined.ProjectisforthereplacementoftheSCADAsystem.Asper44CFR9.11, mitigationorminimizationstandards must be applied, where possible, building contents, materials, and equipment (mechanical or electrical) must be elevated to or above Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE). Perflood insurance rate map (FIRM) panel number 2201390435b, dated05/01/85,projectforPointalaHachewatertreatmentplantislocatedinzone "b",areabetweenlimitsof100-yr flood and 500-yrflood or in certain areas subject toflooding with average depths less than onefoot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or in area protectedfrom the 100-yrflood by levee dike or other structure subject tofailure or overtopping during largerfloods. Project isfor the replacement ofthe SCADA system which perflood recovery guidance, dated 04/12/2006, all equipment and contents should be elevated at least 3ft. above the highest grade elevation. Hazard mitigation proposal is attached. ICorrespondence/Consultation/References: Jamie Schexnayder, FPMSpecialist B. E.0.11990-Wetlands E3 No Effects on Wetland(s) and project located outside Wetland(s) -(Review Concluded) • 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 of floodplain review • 8Step Process Complete -documentation on file Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: http://wwwlamap.doa.louisiana.gov/ C. E.0.12898 -Environmental Justice For Low Income and Minority Populations U No Low income or minority population in, near or affected by the project -(Review Concluded) El Low income or minority population in or near project area pj No disproportionately high and adverse impact on low income or minority population-(Review Concluded) • Disproportionately high or adverse effects on low income or minority population Are project conditions required? • YES (see section V) • NO (Review Concluded) Comments: 69.8% Caucasian, 23.4% African American, 1.6% Hispanic, 18.0% Individuals below poverty level Project repairs will benefit all populations inPlaquemines Parish. Correspondence/Consultation/References: http://factfmdeT.census.gov/home/sammeim.htm\ 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). Record ofEnvironmental Consideration (07/03/2006) 07/03/06 ReviewerName: Nicole Poret Ss^ Comments: Correspondence/Consultation/References: IV. Extraordinary Circumstances Yes R J!nGAre?ter SC°Pue 0[Sf,than norma"y experienced for aparticular category of action U (n) Actions with ahigh level of public controversyU (iii) Potential for degradation, even though slight, of already existing poor environmental conditions; • (iv) Employment ofunproven technology with potential adverse effects or actions involving uniqueor unknownenvironmentalrisks- U (v) Presence of endangered or threatened species or'their critical habitat, or archaeological cultural, historical orother protected resources-' U (v.) Presence of hazardous or toxic substances at levels which exceed Federal, state or local regulations orstandards requiring action orattention- U (vi.) 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 r-i , .... sole orprincipal drinking water aquifers- U (vin) Potential for adverse effects on health or safety-and U (ix) Potential to violate afederal, state, local or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. U (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 not be significant by themselves. V. Environmental Review Project Conditions General comments: Project Conditions: 2) Areasm100-yearflooding,baseflooddevotionandfloodhazardfactorsasdetermined Asper44CFR9U Record ofEnvironmental Consideration (07/03/2006) 07/03/06