Recdrd of Environmental Consideration REVISED FOR FEMA ENVIRONMENTAL -LOUISIANA See 44 Code ofFederal Regulation Part 10 Protect NameINumber: Jones Elementary School-Modular C -PW 15157V3 AppHcant Name: Recovery School District Project Loeatioa: 190IN. Galvez Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 Latitude: 29.97847 Longitude: -90.06341 Project Descriptioa: Hurricane Katrina caused catastrophic damage on August 29, 2005 to Jones Elementary School. This project is one among a total of22 contributing (donor) facilities approved by FEMA for replacement. The Recovery School District chooses to use eligible funds for this replacement project (less demolition costs) towards the renovation ofanother existing RSD school. This project scope ofwork includes only the demolition and disposal ofJones Elementary School. Natioaal nvironmeDtal pon Ad PA Determiaation Statutorily excluded from NEPA review (Review Concluded) o Programmatic Categorical Exclusion o Categorical Exclusion -Category o No Extraordinary Circumstances exist. Are project conditions required? D Yes (see section V) D No (Review CODcluded) o Extraordinary Circumstances exist (see Section IV). o Extraordinary Circumstances mitigated. (see Section IV comments) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see section V) D No (Review CODcluded) o Environmental Assessment D Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Reference EA or PEA in comments) D Environmental Impact Statement ~ Scope ofwork requires public involvement plan ColllllUUlts: This project meets the criteria to utilize the Alternative Arrangements process within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approved by the Council on Environmental Quality, Department ofHomeland Security, and FEMA on 3123/06. Based on documentation provided by the applicant, FEMA has determined that the Recovery School District has conducted a satisfactory process ofpublic involvement and outreach in its project development and is otherwise eligible for consideration under Alternative Arrangements for NEPA compliance. The Recovery School District is responsible for archiving public involvement materials. This material will be available at close-out for authentication and such documentation will be made available for the closeout reviewer. o Project is Non-Compliant (see attached documentation justifying selection). Reviewer and Approvals FEMA EDvironmental Reviewer: Name: Cathe . ental Specia1i~,,-~~ LA-TRO Signature -i-l:--I-'-"'-~-I--~--::::::....f~----Date FEMA EDviroDmental n r or Delegated Approving Omcial: Namt.: ~thiaTeeter, ~uty nvironmental Liaison Officer, FEMA LA TRO Signature ~m& Date 'if ?.,/oc, Record ofEnvironmental Consideration (Version April 2007) I. Compliance Review for Environmental Laws (other than NEPAl A. Nati~n~l Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) D Not type of activity with potential to affect historic structures or archaeological resources (Review Concluded) D Activity meets Programmatic Agreement, December 3, 2004. Appendix A: Allowance No. Are project conditions required? D Yes (see Section V) D No [:8] Programmatic Agreement not applicable for historic structures or archeological sites, must conduct standard Section 106 Review (see comments). D Other Programmatic Agreement dated applies HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES D No historic properties that are listed or 45/50 years or older in project area. (Review Concluded) [:8] Building or structure listed or 45/50 years or older in project area and activity not exempt from review. [:8] Determination of No Historic Properties Affected (FEMA findingiSHPO/THPO concurrence on file) . A~e project conditions required? [:8] Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) DDetermination ofHistoric Properties Affected (FEMA findingiSHPOITHPdco~currence on file) . D Property a National Historic Landmark and National Park Service was provided early notification during the consultation process. Ifnot, explain in comments . ,. D No Adverse Effect Determination (FEMA findingiSHPO/THPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) \: ,', ,; D Adverse Effect Determination (FEMA findingiSHPOITHPO concurrence on file) D Resolution of Adverse Effect completed (MOA on file) Are project conditions required D Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES D Project scope of work has no potential to affect archeological resources (Review Concluded) [:8] Project affects only previously disturbed ground. (Review Concluded) D Project affects undisturbed ground or grounds associated with a historic structure D Project area has no potential for presence of archeological resources D Determination of no historic properties affected (FEMA findingiSHPO/THPO concurrence on file) (Review Concluded) o Pt;oject area has potential for presence of archeological resources : ; .'.' . D Determination ofno historic properties affected (FEMA findinglSij~()rrHPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required D Yes (see Section V) D NofR~vJew Concluded) D Determination of historic properties affected ." , D NR eligible resources not present (FEMA findingiSHPOITHPo' concurrence on file) Are project conditions required D Yes (see Section V) .D.No (Review Concluded) o NR eligible resources present in project area (FEMA findjo,glStl,lfOITHPO cQqQurrence on file) o No Adverse Effect Determination (FEMA findingl~@;9frHPO concurrence on file) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) D Adverse Effect Determination (FEMA finding/SHPO/THPO concurrence on file) D Resolution of Adverse Effect completed (MOA on file) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) Comments:· This comment supersedes the HP comment and LIDS stipulations made by Dana Linck on 12/28/06. A review ofVersion 4 ofthis project was conducted in accordance FEMA's Programmatic Agreement dated December 3, 2004. FEMA has determined that No Historic Properties are affected by the demolition ofthe modulars and pier/foundation removal at Jones Elementary. SHPO concurrence with this determination was received, dated 12110/2007. The review ofthe Altemateprojej;tassociated with this PW will be documented in PW 18597. The applica~t must comply with the Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act (R.S. 8:671 et seq.) and the Inadvertent (lPisvovery Clause, which can be found under the Environmental Review NHPA conditions. -:~\,\;, Correspondence/Consultation/References: Amber Martinez, Historic Preservation spe'dalist and Jerame Cramer, Archaeologist \;;:~;,! Ij , J.< ~)I ~l?i)1 : II Record of Environmental Consideration (Version April 2007) 2 Reviewer Name: Catherine Jones Project Name: Jones Elementary School Modular C FEMA-1603-DR-LA Parish: Orleans B. Endangered Species Act t8J No listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action. (Review Concluded) o Listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in the areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action. o No effect to species or designated critical habitat. (See comments for justification) Ar~ project conditions required? 0 Yes (see Section V) 0 No (Review Concluded) o May affect, but not likely to adversely affect species or designated critical h~bjW(FEMA determinationlUSFWSINMFS concurrence on file) (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? 0 Yes (see Section V) 0 No (Review Concluded) o Likely to adversely affect species or designated critical habitat o Formal consultation concluded. (Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion on file) Are project conditions required? 0 YES (see Section V) 0 NO (Review Concluded) " ; Comments: Project is located in an urban or previously developed area. Neither listed species nor their habitat occur in or near this site, thus FEMA finds there will be no effect to threatened or endangered species. Correspondence/Consultation/References: USFWS emergency consultation provisions determined in letters dated September IS, 200S for Katrina. C. Coastal Barrier Resources Act t8J Project is not on or connected to CBRA Unit or Otherwise Protected Area (Review Concluded). o Project is on or connected to CBRA Unit or Otherwise Protected Area. (FEMA determinationlUSFWS consultation on file) o Proposed action an exception under Section 3S0S.a.6 (Review Concluded) o Proposed action not excepted under Section 3S0S.a.6. }\c::;' .• ~t~project conditions required? 0 YES (see Section V) 0 NO (Review C6ncluded) Comments: Pr~ject is not within a CBRA zone. ~~..-~ Correspond(m~e;Consultation/References: Louisiana Coastal Barrier Resource System Maps referenced 04/23/09. D. Clean Water Act t8J Proj'ect would not affect any waters of the U.S. (Review Concluded) " i;.> o Project would affect waters, including wetlands, of the U.S. o Project exempted as in kind replacement or other exemption. (Review Concluded) o Project requires Section 404/40 I ofClean Water Act or Section 9/10 of Rivers and Harbors Act permit, including qualification under Nationwide Permits. Are project conditions required? 0 YES (see Section V) 0 NO (Review Concluded) o Project would affect waters ofthe U.S. by discharging to a surface water body. Comments: No jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, occur in the project area. Correspondence/Consultation/References: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory map (http://www.fws.gov/nwi/)queried on 04/23109.. \ E. Coastal Zone Management Act ; . D Project is not located in a coastal zone area and does not affect a coastal zone area (Review concluded) ~Pr~ect.is located in a coastal zone area and/or affects the coastal zone t8J State administering agency does not require consistency review. (Review Concluded). . 0 St~e administering agency requires consistency review. '. ' . • '-Are project conditions required? 0 YES (see Section V) 0 NO (Review Concluded) , ,'I .i Comments: This project is located within the Louisiana Coastal Management Zone. LA DNR has determined that receipt of federal assistance is consistent with the Louisiana Coastal Resource Program. Projects within the coastal zone may still require a coastal use permit or other authorization from DNR. Projects may be coordinated by contacting LA DNR at 1800- 276-4019. Correspondence/Consultation/References: Louisiana Coastal Zone maps queried 04/23/09. F. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Record of Environmental Consideration (Version April 2007) r2:]Projeci doe;"not affect, control, or modifY a waterwaylbody of water. (Review Conclju'd~(1) o Project affects, controls or modifies a waterwaylbody of water. D CObrdination with USFWS conducted ., D No Recommendations offered by USFWS. (Review Concluded) D Recommendations provided by USFWS. Are project conditions required? D YES (see Section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: No streams or water bodies are located in or near the project area. Correspondence/Consultation/References: Louisiana Map (http://wwwlamap.doa.louisiana.govL) queried 04/23/09. G. Clean Air Act (8l Project will not result in permanent air emissions. (Review Concluded) D Project is located in an attainment area. (Review Concluded) D Project is located in a non-attainment area. D Coordination required with applicable state administering agency. , Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) D NO (Review'Gonciuded) Comme~ts:T\hi~ project involves the renovation of a public structure. The proposed projp~tiPcludes activities that would produce a minOf, temporary, and localized impact on air quality from fugitive dust particles.' No long-term air quality impact 'is'anticip~ted. Correspondence/Consultation/References: EPA Region 6 Non-attainment Map. H. Farmland Protection Policy Act (8l Project will not affect undisturbed ground. (Review Concluded) D Project has a zoning classification that is other than agricultural or is in an urbanized area. (Review Concluded) D Project does not affect designated prime or unique farmland. (Review Concluded) D Project causes unnecessary or irreversible conversion ofdesignated prime or unique farmland. D Coordination with Natural Resources Conservation Service required. D Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, Form AD-1006, completed. Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Th~project site is in a developed urbanized area and Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is precluded. No prime or unique farmland present. , . ,j Correspondence/Consultation/References: National Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey I (htto:llwebsoilsurvev.nrcs.usda.2:ov/aoo/) referenced 04/23/09. ;'", . I;".: ,,"\ "t" I. MigratQry Bird Treaty Act D Project not;located within a flyway zone (Review Concluded) (8l Project located within a flyway zone. (8l Project does not have potential to take migratory birds (Review Concluded) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see section V) (8l No (Review Concluded) D Project has potential to take migratory birds. D Contact made with USFWS Are project conditions required? D YES (see section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: The site is an existing disturbed area with little value to migratory birds and would not be included in the USFWS migratory bird management program. Correspondence/Consultation/References: USFWS guidance letter dated September 27, 2005 . .1;.: ,M;aiml,~pn-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Managem~~*Act l25J,Proj.e~t.not(located in or near Essential Fish Habitat (Review Concluded):;. ~:,. D: Project located in or near Essential Fish Habitat. , 0 Project does not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (Review Concluded)! , Ate project conditions required? D Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) D Project adversely affects Essential Fish Habitat (FEMA determinationlUSFWSINMFS concurrence on file) ., D NOAA Fisheries provided no recommendation(s) (Review Concluded). Record ofEnvironmental Consideration (Version April 2007) Are project conditions required? D Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) D NOAA Fisheries provided recommendation(s) D Written reply to NOAA Fisheries recommendations completed. Are project conditions required? D YES (see Section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Project is not located in any surface waters with the potential to affect EFH species. CorrespondenCe/Consultation/References: Louisiana Map (http://wwwlamap.doa.louisiana.govD referenced 04/23/09. K. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act cgj Project is not along and does not affect Wild or Scenic River (WSR) -(Review Concluded) D Project is along or affects WSR . D Project adversely affects WSR as determined by NPS/uSFS. FEMA cannot ·fund the action. (NPS/uSFS/uSFWSIBLM consultation on file) (Review Concluded) D Project does not adversely affect WSR. (NPS/uSFS/uSFWSIBLM consultation on file) Are project conditions required? D YES (see Section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments: Project is not along and does not affect Wild or Scenic River (WSR). Correspondence/Consultation/References: National Wild and Scenic Rivers http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html. L. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act State Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Laws and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Comments: Therenovation activities associated with this project may result in various ty~.es,?fdebris and wastes, some of which niayoe'h8zardous. Therefore, all debris and waste must be treated, stored, and dispc!s.ed of in a proper manner and location. (See Section V) II.. COlnnliance Review for Executive Orders A. E.O. 1,1988 -Floodplains . cgj No Effect on FloodplainslFlood levels and project outside Floodplain -(Review C61'tCiWded) D Located in Floodplain or Effects on Floodplains/Flood levels D No adverse effect on floodplain and not adversely affected by the floodplain. (Review Concluded), Are project conditions required? D Yes (see Section V) D No (Review Concluded) D Beneficial Effect on Floodplain Occupancy/Values (Review Concluded), D Possible adverse effects associated with investment in floodplain, occupancy or modification of floodplain environment D 8 Step Process Complete -documentation on file Are project conditions required? D YES (see Section V) D NO (Review Concluded) ). ,. Ct?~ments:This version is for the demolition of the facility. The remaining replacement'funds will be de-obligated and applied to an alternate project involving another facility, No further floodplain review wiIrbe-[orthcoming for PW listed unless there should be are-obligation of funds or changes to the scope of work. . C"rrespoqencWConsultation/References: Melanie Sibley, Environmental Specialist-Floodplain B. E.p.ll990 -Wetlands " ' ~NoEffects on Wetland(s) and/or project located outside WetJand(s) -(Review Conclu,ded) D Located in Wetland or effects Wetland(s) .' , D Beneficial Effect on Wetland -(Review Concluded) D Possible adverse effect associated with constructing in or near wetland D Review completed as part of floodplain review D 8 Step Process Complete -documentation on file Are project conditions required? D YES (see Section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Record ofEnvironmental Consideration (Version April 2007) Comments: NO'ne Comme~is: Np wetlands were determined to be present by checking the USFWS Natiomil Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. Correspondence/Consultation/References: USFWS NWI map accessed on-line. (htto:/ /wetiandsfws.er .us!!s. !!OVIwtlnds/launch.htrnl) 04/2312009. C; E~O. 12898 -Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations D Project scope of work has no potential to adversely impact any population (Review Cllntiuded) D No Low income or minority population in, near or affected by the project based on information gathered from [add a reference] (Review Concluded) I25J 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) I25J Disproportionately high or adverse effects on low income or minority popUlation Are project conditions required? I25J YES (see Section V) D NO (Review Concluded) Comments The percent populations of70119 are: 31.9% Black, 64% White, and 3.0% Hispanic. The median household income in 1999 was $ 60,374 and 15.0% offamilies are below poverty level. This projectinvolves the demolition and abandonment of a public school. Costs associated with rebuilding this school will b~appHed to the reconstruction of other schools throughout Orleans Parish. This action tak~~ into consideration the changed derilographics as a result ofthe storm; the changed cultural environment subsequent to th~ ~ge of school integration; and the substand~~d'fUn~tionality ofthe existing buildings. This action is considered to be the best alternative for the welfare of the stUdentS.;' .:.~~ . . One of trie' main ;goals of the RSD Master Plan was to ensure the maximization of public\lnvolvement and develop a plan tnat is ~mbracet< I: . ~ : , . f-; Record of Environmental Consideration (Version April 2007)